Document of The World Bank

Report No:ICR0000204

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-41080)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$113.4 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOR A

THIRD ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROJECT

January 31, 2007

Human Development Sector Unit East Asia and Pacific Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective 01/12/2007 ) Currency Unit = PhP

PhP 1.00 = US$ 0.02 US$ 1.00 = PhP 49

Fiscal Year July 1 - June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACTF Adopt-A-Child Trust Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation AIP Annual Implementation Plan MIS Management Information System

ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures

BEE Bureau of Elementary Education MPS Mean Percentage Score

BEIS Basic Education Information System

NAT National Achievement Test

BESRA Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda

NCR National Capital Region

CAS Country Assistance Strategy NEAP National Educators Academy of the Philippines

CPISU Central Project Implementation Support Unit

NEAT National Elementary Assessment Test

DBM Department of Budget and Management

NER Net Enrollment Ratio

DDU Depressed, Disadvantaged, and Underserved

NGOs Non-government Organizations

DECS Department of Education, Culture and Sports

NPSBE National Program Support for Basic Education

DEDP Division Elementary Education Development Plan

NSBA National Sample-Based Assessment

DepED Department of Education NW-DSF National Window Demand-Side Financing

DPISU Division Project Implementation Support Unit

NW-SSF National Window Supply-Side Financing

EMIS Education Management Information System

OECF Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund

EFILERMAT Effective Instructional Leadership and Educational Resource Management Training

PAD Project Appraisal Document

ELS Elementary Leader School PCR Project Completion Report GOP Government of the Philippines PhP Philippine Peso

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

SAR Staff Appraisal Report

ICR Implementation Completion Report SBM School-Based Management

IMCS Instructional Materials Council Secretariat

SBPF School-Based Procurement of Furniture

INSET In Service Training SEMP Social Expenditure Management Project

ISR Implementation Status Report SIIF School Improvement and Innovation Facility

JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation

SIP School Improvement Plan

LAN Local Area Network SS Satellite School LGU Local Government Unit TEEP Third Elementary Education Project

MDFO Municipal Development Fund Office

USD United States Dollar

Vice President: James W. Adams (EAPVP) Country Director: Joachim von Amsberg (EACPF) Sector Manager: Christopher J. Thomas (EASHD)

Project Team Leader: Dingyong Hou (EASHD) ICR Team Leader: Lynnette Dela Cruz Perez (EASHD)

PHILIPPINES THIRD ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROJECT

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design............................................... 12. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 53. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 104. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome......................................................... 155. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 156. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................ 167. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners........... 17Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................... 18Annex 2. Outputs by Component.................................................................................. 19Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 28Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes............. 29Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 31Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 33Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 34Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 55Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 88Annex 10. Additional Annex ........................................................................................ 8910.1 Project Outcomes Indicators, by Division (Baseline to 2005).............................. 8910.2 Endnotes................................................................................................................ 90

MAP IBRD 27835R

i

A. Basic Information Country: Philippines Project Name:

THIRD ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

Project ID: P004602 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-41080 ICR Date: 03/30/2007 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Original Total Commitment:

USD 113.4M Disbursed Amount: USD 83.1M

Environmental Category: C Implementing Agencies: Department of Education Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 05/15/1995 Effectiveness: 07/02/1997 07/02/1997 Appraisal: 07/30/1996 Restructuring(s): 08/24/2001 Approval: 11/26/1996 Mid-term Review: 03/15/2001 Closing: 06/30/2004 06/30/2006 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Low or Negligible Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance: Satisfactory

ii

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation

Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 6 6 Other social services 4 4 Primary education 66 66 Sub-national government administration 7 7 Tertiary education 17 17

Theme Code (Primary/Secondary) Decentralization Secondary Primary Education for all Primary Primary Participation and civic engagement Secondary Secondary Rural services and infrastructure Primary Primary Social analysis and monitoring Secondary Secondary E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: James W. Adams Javad Khalilzadeh-Shirazi Country Director: Joachim von Amsberg Javad Khalilzadeh-Shirazi Sector Manager: Christopher J. Thomas Sven Burmester Project Team Leader: Dingyong Hou Francoise Delannoy ICR Team Leader: Lynnette Dela Cruz Perez ICR Primary Author: Nidhi Khattri

iii

F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The objectives of the project were to: (1) build institutional capacity of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), which became the Department of Education (DepED) in August 2001, to manage the change process associated with the project; and (2) improve learning achievement, completion rate, and access to quality elementary education in 20 provinces included in the Social Reform Agenda provinces, and six provinces identified by the Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty. The key outcome/impact indicators were as follows: • Qualitative monitoring of the degree to which policy decisions reflected project-funded research; the gap between planned and actual sub-sectoral expenditures; institutionalization of in-service training; and the extent to which central/local cost-sharing operated as a targeting mechanism. • Achievement: students' scores in English, mathematics, and science. The overall baseline estimate for learning achievement was 65 percent (weighted average of the MPS of the targeted provinces/divisions) on the 1995 NEAT for mathematics in grade six. The MPS was expected to increase by 20 percentage points. • Completion: completion rate through grade six. The mean baseline completion rate was 55 percent. It was expected to improve by 8.5 to 16.5 percentage points to 63.5 to 71.5 percent. • Access: net enrollment ratio (NER). The SAR noted no target improvement for NER, although the GOP Project Completion Report (PCR) states a target of 91-95 percent. The baseline was noted as 87 percent in 1995 for the whole country, with 1.2 million children out of school, mostly in rural areas. The projected flow of students in the 26 provinces was expected to increase from 1,807,270 in 1994-95 to 2,184,199 in 2002-03. • School distance from home. Percentage of children living less than one hour's walk from school. Baseline estimates ranged from 13 percent of grade 1 children living more than one hour's walk from school to 21 percent of grade 6 children. The target was set at 95 percent of 6-12 year olds living less than one hour's walk from school. • Stakeholder involvement. The extent to which stakeholders felt that they were consulted during project preparation and implementation. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The project objectives were not revised, although the project was redesigned (corrective restructuring) after the mid-term review completed in 2001. The number of divisions/provinces included was reduced to 22, which later increased to 23 (in 2004), as Zamboanga Sibugay (originally part of Zamboanga del Sur) was recognized as a separate division. After the project components were revised, the indicators on achievement, completion, and enrollment were retained, and some new baselines and targets were specified at a later stage (see Table 1 in section 3.2).

iv

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Improved student learning achievements measured by test scores, participation and completion rates.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

<50 MPS (Date achieved: 1993-1995)

+20 percentage points

59-65 MPS (NAT) (Date achieved: 2005)

Date achieved 12/31/1995 11/27/1996 12/31/2005 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Please see analysis in section 8.2

Indicator 2 : Improved student learning achievements measured by test scores, participation and completion rates.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

Participation rate: 72-97 Completion rate: 55 percent (Date achieved: 1996)

Participation rate: 79.4 percent; Completion rate: 61.4 percent (Date achieved: 2005)

Date achieved 12/31/1996 12/31/2005 Comments (incl. % achievement)

The calculation for NER was based on 7-12 age group prior to 2002-03 but on 6-11 age group subsequently. Please see analysis and explanations in section 8.2.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Improve DepEd capacity through more information based decision-making and provide grants for school based innovation.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Date achieved

Comments (incl. % achievement)

The project has succeeded in enhancing the capacity of DepED and administrative staff at all levels, but it is difficult to say by how much. The project supported 3,069 SIIF grants, which empowered schools to devise specific solutions to their problems.

Indicator 2 : None noted Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Date achieved

v

Comments (incl. % achievement)

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP

Actual Disbursements (USD millions)

1 09/16/1997 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/03/1997 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 06/15/1998 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.00 4 01/05/1999 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.05 5 06/30/1999 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 3.07 6 12/29/1999 Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 3.27 7 06/02/2000 Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 4.17 8 11/22/2000 Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 9.67 9 11/27/2000 Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 9.67

10 06/07/2001 Satisfactory Satisfactory 12.13 11 12/06/2001 Satisfactory Satisfactory 13.66 12 03/12/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 19.99 13 09/19/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 29.96 14 03/17/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 35.48 15 09/22/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 48.06 16 02/23/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 55.10 17 10/20/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 67.44 18 06/07/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 73.50 19 05/15/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 82.00

H. Restructuring (if any)

ISR Ratings at RestructuringRestructuring

Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change DO IP

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made

08/24/2001 N S S 13.23

Reasons for restructuring: 1) overly optimistic assumptions that education management can rapidly be devolved to Local Government Units (LGUs); 2) inordinate pressure exerted on LGUs to provide 25% equity; 3) complexity of

vi

ISR Ratings at RestructuringRestructuring

Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change DO IP

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made

management structure; and 4) ambitiousness of project. Key changes made: 1) reorganization of project management and implementation structure; 2) reduction in equity share of LGUs from 25% to 10%; 3) reduction of administrative costs; 4) shift to DepEd-led school building program directly involving school principals/heads; 5) resetting of school building program targets; and 6) introduction of Elementary Leader Schools as core priorities of project inputs.

vii

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design.

1.1 Context at Appraisal.

At appraisal, the objectives of the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) were alignedwith the goals of the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS; dated February 15, 1996) aswell as with the Philippine government's education sector strategy. A key goal of the 1996 CAS was to fight poverty through the provision of basic services to the poor. The CASaimed to contribute to the Government of the Philippines (GOP) strategy to address inequitiesoverall and in the education subsector through improved targeting of funding, cost-sharing with local government, and decentralizing some aspects of education. The 26 provincesselected for the project contained 20 percent of the country's school-age population (6-12 year olds) and 24 percent of the country's poor, but accounted for only 16.7 percent of theeducation resources. Countrywide data indicated a low elementary completion rate (67percent for public schools in 1995; average of 55 percent in target provinces) (Staff Appraisal Report [SAR], RN 15888-PH) and less than desired student achievement – less than 50 mean percentage score (MPS) on the 1993-1996 National Elementary Achievement Tests (NEAT;GOP Project Completion Report), which were based on grade six curriculum prevalent at the time. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved) The objectives of the project were to: (1) build institutional capacity of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), which became the Department of Education (DepED) in August 2001, to manage the change process associated with the project; and (2) improve learning achievement, completion rate, and access to quality elementary education in 20 provinces included in the Social Reform Agenda provinces, and six provinces identified by the Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty. The key outcome/impact indicators were as follows:1

• Qualitative monitoring of the degree to which policy decisions reflected project-funded research; the gap between planned and actual sub-sectoral expenditures; institutionalization of in-service training; and the extent to which central/local cost-sharing operated as a targeting mechanism.

• Achievement: students' scores in English, mathematics, and science. The overall baseline estimate for learning achievement was 65 percent (weighted average of the MPS of the targeted provinces/divisions) on the 1995 NEAT for mathematics in grade six. The MPS was expected to increase by 20 percentage points.

• Completion: completion rate through grade six. The mean baseline completion rate was 55 percent. It was expected to improve by 8.5 to 16.5 percentage points to 63.5 to 71.5 percent.

• Access: net enrollment ratio (NER). The SAR noted no target improvement for NER,

2

although the GOP Project Completion Report (PCR) states a target of 91-95 percent. The baseline was noted as 87 percent in 1995 for the whole country, with 1.2 million children out of school, mostly in rural areas. The projected flow of students in the 26 provinces was expected to increase from 1,807,270 in 1994-95 to 2,184,199 in 2002-03.

• School distance from home. Percentage of children living less than one hour's walk from school. Baseline estimates ranged from 13 percent of grade 1 children living more than one hour's walk from school to 21 percent of grade 6 children. The target was set at 95 percent of 6-12 year olds living less than one hour's walk from school.

• Stakeholder involvement. The extent to which stakeholders felt that they were consulted during project preparation and implementation.

1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators (as approved by original approving authority), and reasons/justification The project objectives were not revised, although the project was redesigned (corrective restructuring) after the mid-term review completed in 2001. The number of divisions/provinces included was reduced to 22, which later increased to 23 (in 2004), as Zamboanga Sibugay (originally part of Zamboanga del Sur) was recognized as a separatedivision. After the project components were revised, the indicators on achievement, completion, and enrollment were retained, and some new baselines and targets were specified at a later stage (see Table 1 in section 3.2). 1.4 Main Beneficiaries The main project beneficiaries were the elementary school children residing in poor rural areas of the 23 project divisions. The secondary beneficiary was the Philippines education system (DepED and the division education offices), whose institutional capacity to provide improved services was expected to be enhanced as a result of designing, implementing, and directly benefiting from the capacity development inputs of the project. 1.5 Original Components (as approved) The original design included two main components, each of which comprised several subcomponents. The dollar amounts indicated for each component included Bank, GOP, and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) contributions (excluding contingency allowances). Component 1: Capacity building at the central and regional levels (US$28.0 million). This component focused on establishing a national management structure to help DECS manage the project and build capacity at the local level. The component comprised three subcomponents: (a) national management structure (US$6.7 million); (b) support to policy

3

and decision-making (US$9.6 million); and (c) support for decentralized management (US$11.7 million). Component 2: Elementary education improvement in 26 provinces (US$453.7 million). The purpose of this component was to strengthen the capacity of the DECS divisional offices, the Local Government Units (LGUs), Parent-Teacher Associations, Teacher Education Institutes, non-Government Organizations, and communities to support the project and to implement the Divisional Elementary Education Development Plans (DEDP). DEDPs were division-level projects prepared with stakeholder inputs and with detailed annual workplans and budgets. The component comprised two subcomponents: (a) capacity building for divisional and provincial management (US$32.5 million); and (b) funding of the divisional elementary education development plans (US$421.2 million). The IBRD loan of US$113.4 million was to finance 19.9 percent of the total project costs. The Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF), later JBIC, loan of US$104.8 million financed 18.4 percent of the costs. The remaining was to be financed by the National Government and the LGU. The loan was reduced to about US$93 million at mid-term review and another US$10 million to about US$83 million in the last year of implementation, as most activities were expected to be completed and the DepED's proposal to use the US$10 million from the unallocated category was not approved by the Investment Coordinating Committee of the National Economic and Development Authority of the Philippines. The project was initially budgeted at US$569 million (total amount from all sources of funding, including contingencies), but the final expenditure (June 30, 2006) amounted to US$221 million due to three reasons: the cancellation of approximately US$30 million from the Bank; devaluation of the PhP from about PhP26 in 1997 per United States Dollar (USD) to about PhP52 at project completion in 2006; and much lower contributions by GOP than was originally estimated in SAR in USD terms. 2 The first cancellation of US$20 million was made at the mid-term restructuring for the reduced scope of the project to target a small number of schools for the school building program. The last cancellation of about US$9.8 million was requested during the last year of implementation as a result of the government's decision to maintain the Philippine PESO cap on the project. The appraised counterpart funding from the government was also adjusted due to severe fiscal constraints. The IBRD loan financing ratio was adjusted accordingly to compensate for the reduced counterpart contributions. The project's key objectives and eventual outcomes were however not affected due to reduced funding from the project as a result of appropriate prioritization and adjustment and other cost-savings, as discussed in the sections below. 1.6 Revised Components The project components were revised based upon the findings of a mid-term review, completed in early 2001. The revised components and their management and implementation procedures were agreed upon between the GOP and the Bank in May 2001.

4

The revised project components were as follows: Component 1: Education development (US$83.53 million). This component comprised activities in three broad areas:

1. In-service training of education staff (INSET), the School Improvement and Innovation Facility (SIIF), a grant facility for funding specific school improvement initiatives), and provision of textbooks and supplementary materials, school kits, and equipment and furniture. School-based management (SBM) was later added to this area. These elements of the component were to be provided to a cluster of "leader" and "satellite" schools. Leader schools were to receive resources and services directly first, which they were to share with their satellite schools.

2. Teacher and school manager training (INSET), school kits, textbooks and supplemental materials, and SIIF grants, to be provided to other schools (i.e., schools not in the cluster of "leader" and "satellite" schools) in the division.

3. Enhancing DECS' management capacity through developing and implementing student assessment, establishing the Educational Management Information System (EMIS), policy research, school mapping, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

Component 2: Civil works (US$136.3 million). This component included the DECS-led school building program and provision of furniture and new and repaired classrooms for all schools ("cluster" and other), local participation in the schools building program through the LGUs, and construction of DepED division offices, the Central Project Implementation Support Unit (CPISU) office, and the National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) training center. Although the mid-term review project redesign mentioned that the project would not involve equity from LGUs and that it would require no Municipal Development Fund Office (MDFO) participation (pg. 7), the project ultimately required 10 percent of LGU equity for the schools building program. Component 3: Finance and administration (US$17.74 million). This component involved procurement, project management, and financial management for all schools and capacity building for the implementation of these aspects of the component. It also included the development of the M&E system and the EMIS. The project management was changed to designate the DepED secretary as the Project Director, to be assisted by a Deputy Project Director. The Secretary had played an advisory role in the earlier management structure, and the directorship was relegated to a lower level. The mid-term review also suggested a revision of the baseline and target figures for monitoring project performance (see Table 1, section 3.2). The SAP, however, did not reflect the redistribution and accounting of project funds along the lines of the new components. Annex 3 reflects the original accounting. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the figures in Annex 3 are based on PhP converted to USD, based on the exchange rate of approximately PhP52 to one USD. 1.7 Other significant changes

5

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry The project objectives were strategic, and the technical components were sound. However, analysis of the factors on which the policy, institutional, and implementation aspects of the project were based was not as robust as would be indicated from prior lessons. The project objectives and design were grounded in the experience of 11 previous projects in the Philippines since 1965. The 1981 Sector Program for Decentralized Elementary Education (Ln. 2030-PH) provided lessons for using a phased approach to project implementation (i.e., piloting first and then using lessons learned for broadening the experience) and the 1991 Second Elementary Education Project (Ln. 3244-PH) informed project staffing and disbursement agreements. However, despite earlier lessons regarding the lack of absorptive capacity at the local level, the project took a highly decentralized (albeit phased) approach and faced implementation issues almost immediately upon becoming active. The SAR noted the risk of taking a decentralized approach, but it did not anticipate plausible risk scenarios and plan adequate measures for mitigating such potential risks. The lack of local human capacity was unanticipated (i.e., development of education plans and skills/knowledge required for undertaking such efforts), as was the LGUs' unwillingness/inability to provide the needed equity (25 percent) for the civil works program. Although the SAR mentioned possible local political pressures that could interfere with the school building program, it did not adequately address the potential problems with LGU financing, as analysis had indicated that greater financial transfers were expected to flow to the local governments. This situation was exacerbated by a project management structure that was complex and lacking in adequate controls and oversight. Key roles were delegated to consultants without a rigorous system for monitoring their performance, holding them accountable for results, and integrating the inputs into a comprehensive, coordinated framework. 2.2 Implementation The project components were revised based upon the findings of the mid-term review completed in 2000. The review specifically noted that only 10 percent of the loan funds had been spent, of which half were for consulting fees. In terms of physical accomplishments, only two percent of the civil works had been completed in the span of 2.5 years (and only five percent of target). The review findings noted several issues, including:

Lack of coordination and optimization of synergies among the education subcomponents (e.g., INSET and student assessment);

A large technical assistance contract for project implementation with no accountability for results [with sub-contractors working in silos and without adequate qualifications and skills];

Lack of proper oversight for implementation and coordination with the district and

6

division levels; Poor textbooks and instructional materials distribution planning which resulted in

multiple titles within the same classroom; Lack of strategic use of INSET for catalyzing reform due to insufficient emphasis

on pedagogy; reliance on top-down planning rather than bottom-up needs assessments; and lack of use of existing master teachers;

Lack of school-level involvement in the selection of appropriate instructional materials and kits to meet their needs; and

Delays in contracting due in part to complex MDFO procedures. About US$20M of the loan was cancelled (about 18 percent), and the project components and their management and implementation procedures were revised in May 2001. The main post-review strategic change was to develop a more refined phased approach to the project by designating clusters of Elementary Leader Schools (ELS) and Satellite Schools (SS). After project redesign, the implementation proceeded more smoothly and rapidly than before. A number of factors can be credited with this turnaround in project implementation and the project's eventual outcomes. These include:

The availability of a school mapping exercise, completed in 1998, that provided a credible basis for prioritizing civil works and furniture inputs, especially after the other project components were revised;

A strategic, phased approach to the project by designating clusters of ELS and SS schools and piloting with some clusters first to experiment and demonstrate successes;

A simpler project management structure, staffed with organic (regular) DepED staff in key positions and experts in specific areas of the project. Organic staff from the different units of the DepEd joined the project office for developmental assignments and eventually returned to their units with lessons for institutional change;

Streamlined processes and manuals for project components, including standardized architectural designs for civil works;

Capacity building and provision of intensive support through monitoring, supervision, training, manuals, and other on-demand support mechanisms;

Conscious absorption of gains and synergies from experiences in other foreign-assisted projects, such as Asian Development Bank's study on SBM, the clustering approach based on AusAID's Project in Basic Education, and math and science teacher training, funded by Japan International Cooperation Agency;

Gradual decentralization of school-based education planning, which resulted in desired community involvement and transparency with respect to planning and school performance;

Institution of quality assurance mechanisms in procurement and distribution of project materials and goods;

The project's emphasis on close monitoring and supervision, and the dedication of project management staff at all levels;

7

Reforms in procurement (such as decentralizing of bidding, transparency, streamlined procurement processes, accountability and public monitoring) and involvement of principals in school construction led to efficiency gains, lower cost better quality of output improved procurement process, improved capacity at the national level, and strengthened local management; and

A concerted effort on the part of Bank staff to be responsive to implementation issues and to provide advice.

A negative factor was the frequent changes in top leadership at DepED, which witnessed the appointment of seven secretaries of Education with concomitant discontinuity of high-level management oversight and support, although one undersecretary remained throughout the whole project duration. However, this situation was countered by a strong and dedicated project team. On the Bank side, the project was managed by four successive task managers, which impeded continuity. On the other hand, the Bank team became successively more effective over time. Other negative factors include the initial delays in the release of project funds and the reassignment of project personnel who were familiar with the project to other positions, even though new personnel were not available or ready to assume responsibility. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization M&E design: The project M&E for the revised components is simple and well designed. The key performance indicators for outcomes (achievement, completion, and enrollment) are based on Department of Education's Basic Education Information System (BEIS), which was rolled out in 2002-2003 and includes data on enrollment, completion, and can be merged with student achievement (for the nationwide student achievement tests). The project also developed additional data-collection forms and an internet-based system for collecting project-specific data, which were cascaded down to the school-level (although the forms could be further simplified and streamlined). This Management Information System (MIS), however, is not yet fully operational at the division and school levels. M&E implementation: The M&E system is computerized at the Center and is expected to become fully web-based, although not all divisions have access to the internet yet. The project relied on paper-based or CD-based reports on project inputs (e.g., number of pieces of furniture, number of training events) and outputs (e.g., number of school-based improvement plans completed). The outcome measures were based on the school administrative data that were reported to the divisions and to the Center. The project administrative data were reported on a monthly basis. The challenge now is to integrate all data into the regular DepED's BEIS system. Another challenge is to revise the DepED's national assessment framework, develop and standardize achievement tests, and train teachers and principals in the use of the information. This subcomponent was to have been completed under the project, but was not due to a number of delays in launching the initiative. M&E Utilization: The data generated from the project M&E system and the central BEIS

8

system have been used well to inform school-based planning and to provide inputs, such as training, especially in the latter half of the project. The introduction of SBM has created awareness of the importance of the use of data for planning, monitoring, and evaluation at all levels of the education system. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) team saw evidence of various education indicators (e.g., completion and dropout rates) being calculated at the school-level as well to inform school-based planning and decision-making, although the understanding of these indicators varied significantly across schools. (The school-level indicators are not used for administrative purposes; schools provide raw data to the divisions.) However, the data on NER require a thorough review for policy and planning purposes. With the implementation of the BEIS in 2002-03, NER was computed on the basis of the 6-11 age cohort (rather than the age 7-12 age group, as was previously the case). End-of-project NER on the basis of the new population group shows a decline from 2002-2003 for both TEEP and for the country as a whole, although the decline is three percentage points less for TEEP than it was nationwide (section 3.2 provides specific numbers). Possible causes of decrease could be a lower-than-expected growth in this age cohort, which was projected to increase by two percent overall, based on the relatively recent 2000 census data (although the population in the TEEP divisions shows a projected increase of a much steeper five percent between 2002-03 and 2004-05) as well as less-than-desired enrollment of the age 6-11 cohort (see section 3.2). Furthermore, the NER figures are slightly different, depending on the document reviewed. The GOP PCR shows 82 percent NER for 2002-03 (excluding Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao -ARMM)3, whereas the new Bank-supported project, National Program Support for Basic Education (NPSBE; RN 35445-PH), shows 86 percent for the same year.4 A possible reason for this difference could be the time the data were obtained; the NPSBE data were obtained in 2005, whereas the GOP PCR data were obtained in 2006, and, therefore, includes later submissions of data from some divisions. The data on the completion rate appears to be robust and is being used in conjunction with other information to assess the reasons why children do not complete school. Finally, the student achievement indicators are based on the National Sample Based Assessments (NSBA), which were conducted as part of the project in 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, and the National Achievement Tests (NAT), which were conducted nationwide in 2003, 2004, and 2005.5 The NSBA data have been analyzed extensively to identify the least-learned skills to inform pedagogy, subject focus, and school/division interventions to improve learning outcomes. These data have also been used for assessing project outcomes and for providing feedback to the participant schools on their performance. However, the 2003 and 2005 NSBA data are not strictly comparable as the competency frameworks utilized for developing the tests were not the same, although cross-sectional comparisons are valid. The NAT was administered to the same cohort of students between 2003 and 2005 (successively in grades four, five, and six). However, the tests were administered by the class teachers themselves, possibly yielding biased results. Data from the 2005-2006

9

NAT will be more robust, as the test was administered by independent examiners. (Many divisions and districts have their own assessments as well, which are used for school-based planning, although the value-added of these assessments needs to be established.) The project has a rich database of quantitative information on school inputs, outputs, and quality. These data have the potential to be systematically mined to answer questions related to the impact of various types of inputs and interventions (e.g., SBM) on NER, completion rate and student achievement as well as about the individual cost-effectiveness of such inputs and processes. Such analyses would also highlight whether the benefits were equally distributed across the various types of schools, especially to those located in depressed, disadvantaged, and underserved (DDU) areas. For example, disaggregation by type of school shows that relatively fewer multigrade schools benefited from the school building program inputs as compared to monograde schools (41 versus 83 percent, respectively) and SIIF grants (17 and 47 percent, respectively), although this distribution may reflect the project's strategic choices (e.g., to create demonstration effects with better performing schools; to strengthen schools serving larger populations, and so forth). Such systematic analyses have not yet been undertaken, although several reports (e.g., the JBIC review, the technical report on NSBA 2005) have provided useful analyses using student achievement and other project input data at an aggregate level. Thus, the M&E system can be further strengthened through a more in-depth use of the achievement data available to answer policy-related questions. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance The project encompassed no significant safeguard issues. No adverse environmental impact was associated with the construction and rehabilitation of school buildings. The project was designed to respond to the education needs of schools located in DDU areas, including those with indigenous populations. The project interventions included, for example, resources for developing pedagogies and curriculum materials based on local cultures. The project complied with the fiduciary requirements of the Bank. Procurement followed the guidelines of the co-financiers, WB and JBIC, and the new Government Procurement Reform Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Contract irregularities and issues were few, involving for example, faulty school design and construction or falsification of commercial documents. In these cases civil or criminal cases were duly filed, and only one remaining case is pending resolution. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase The reforms introduced under the current project are likely to be carried forward under DepED's Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) and with support from the Bank. TEEP's decentralization thrust was consonant with the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (RA 9155), which was progressively refined into the "Schools First"

10

initiative and embodied in policy actions in BESRA. BESRA emphasizes school-based planning, community involvement, and decentralization of some aspects of education, including localization of aspects of the curriculum and providing grants to finance school innovative school improvement activities (similar to TEEP's SIIF). TEEP has provided several relevant lessons regarding decentralization: locally managed school construction; mobilization of community stakeholders to participate in school improvement planning, monitoring, and use of funds at the school level; and involvement of civil society in procurement, textbook inspection and delivery. Division-level procurement inspectorates are also a good example for setting up controls in local procurement and distribution systems. The Instructional Materials Council Secretariat (IMCS) provides a model of quality control in the development of new educational materials. Thus, the project's successful experience with a phased approach to school-based management, as well as its other initiatives (e.g., SIIF, teacher training, principal-led school building program, etc.), have informed the formulation of BESRA. In the last year of the project, TEEP sponsored several workshops, including a Department-wide orientation involving school division superintendents and regional officers regarding SBM, and supported the replication of SBM in contiguous school divisions. The TEEP SBM manual has served as a basis for the development of the DepEd SBM framework, which will guide the phased expansion of SBM in all public elementary and secondary schools of the country. In addition, DepED's memo 252, issued in July 2006, instructs the Physical Facilities and Schools Engineering Division to use the principal-led school building modality for building schools. Budget projections based on several scenarios have revealed financing gaps for taking the education reforms forward.6 The financing gap posed a challenge for how deeply the reform agenda could be implemented and institutionalized. The Bank's recently approved NPSBE project, which supports the government's reform program over a five-year period (2006-2010), is designed to serve two purposes: (a) to assist with fiscal reform in the short run; and (b) to support the development of longer-term institutional capacity. It is a budget support operation, which expands the resource base and finances some of the priority reform items that were piloted and implemented in TEEP. In addition, it aims to ensure savings through monitoring and management of reforms and their implementation. These reforms and items include the aforementioned SBM; greater involvement of local governments in school improvement planning, resource mobilization and monitoring; and more systemic support from private sector to address the technical and resource needs especially at the school-level. The project also addresses issues of quality through support for development and application of teacher competency standards, and the development and implementation of standards for key learning areas and school physical inputs. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation At the time of this writing, the project objectives and implementation processes continue to

11

be highly relevant to the Bank's strategy in the Philippines. The 2006-2008 CAS (RN 3214-PH) outlines priorities in social inclusion, including greater voice and access for the poor and disadvantaged groups in the planning and delivery of education and other basic services at the local level. A low rate of elementary education completion and lower than desired student achievement continue to be of concern (see Table 1 in section 3.2), and the decentralization mechanism has been designed for engaging local communities as a method for improving the efficiency and quality of education. The nationwide completion rate is 63 percent (2004-05), and the composite achievement data (across all subjects tested) for grade six (2004-05) is below the desired target of 75 MPS. Other education-related challenges noted by the government include:

• Centrally regulated decision-making with no clear accountability; • Inefficiencies in resource management; • Schools' lack of ability to respond flexibly to local needs; • Shortage of educational materials in disadvantaged areas and classrooms; and • Less-than-desired quality of the teaching force.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives The project has achieved its development objectives. The three indicators with respect to achieving the project objectives include NER, completion rate for elementary education (grade six), and student achievement. Data with respect to these indicators show that the project has been successful in supporting the improvement of the quality of education, it has positively influenced the elementary completion rate, which improved from baseline, although it falls short of target, but its contribution to increasing the elementary NER is unclear, due to uncertainty about the accuracy of the elementary age population data and the NER statistic itself. However, all changes in these indicators are favorable in comparison to the data for the country as a whole at the time of project completion. In light of the results on student achievement, and the status of the completion rate and NER indicators as compared with the data for the country as a whole, the project merits a rating of satisfactory for the achievement of its objectives. Table 1 below exhibits the baselines, targets, and the achievement by each indicator.

12

13

Table 1: Project achievement indicators, by baseline, target, and latest status Indicator Baseline

Target 2002-2003

Project Status 2004-2005

Change (2003 to 2005)

Net Enrollment Ratio (NER) NER TEEP 72-97

percent (7-12 year olds) (division range) (1996)

91-95 percent (set post mid-term review)

83.3 percent (6-11 year olds)

79.4 percent (6-11 year olds)

-3.9 percentage points

*NER Country (excluding ARMM)

87 percent (7-12 year olds) (1996)

82.9 percent (6-11 year olds)

76.1 percent (6-11 year olds)

-6.8 percentage points

Completion Rate Completion TEEP

55 percent (division average) (1996)

64 to 72 percent (from SAR); 58 to 78 percent (set post mid-term review)

60.2 percent

61.4 percent

1.2 percentage points. 1995-2005 change is 6.4 percentage points

*Completion Country (excluding ARMM)

64 percent (1996)

64.8 percent 63.3 percent

-1.6 percentage points

Achievement NEAT <50 MPS

(1993-96) Test

Dropped

NAT – TEEP ELS

46 MPS – Grade 4

65 MPS – Grade 6

NAT –TEEP non-ELS

45 MPS – Grade 4

59 MPS – Grade 6

NAT – non-TEEP

(non-poor divisions)

44 MPS – Grade 4

60 MPS – Grade 6

NSBA (overall) – TEEP

39.2 MPS (1999)

40-75 MPS (set post-mid-term review)

42.7 MPS (Grades 2,4,6)

45.8 MPS (Grades 2,4,6)

3.1 percentage points (not sig.)7

14

NSBA (overall)- nonTEEP

42.5 MPS (1999)

42.4 MPS (Grades 2,4,6)

39.9 MPS (Grades 2,4,6)

-2.5 percentage points (not sig.)

NSBA TEEP versus nonTEEP Achievement Difference, 2005: 5.9 percentage points, significant, p<.05

Note: the enrollment and completion indicators are based on data from GOP's Unified Data Gathering System. NER and completion rate for the country exclude the ARMM Region. The ARMM has a separate DepEd, which is responsible for collecting and submitting data to DepED. NER: The baseline information is from SAR; target information is from GOP PCR. Completion: The baseline information is from SAR; target information is from GOP PCR. NEAT: Information is from GOP PCR. NSBA: Information is from the NSBA 2005 technical report. NAT: Information is from JBIC report (draft). The JBIC researchers' report (draft, pg. 2-4) states that the TEEP participation rate improved by 3.4 percent between 1999 and 2002, compared with the 1.9 percent increase for non-TEEP non-ARMM provinces. This information is based on the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) involving 40,000 randomly selected households in1999 and 2002. No intermediate outcome indicator was specified as such in the redesigned project, but the Implementation Status Reports (ISR) also mention "Improved DepED capacity through more information-based decision-making and provide [sic] grants for school-based innovation." Enrollment, Completion, and Student Achievement

In 1996 (two years prior to the start of project implementation in 1998), the overall NER was recorded at 87 percent (and the gross enrollment rate was 95 percent, based on the 7-12 age group), completion rate was 64 percent, and the 1993-1996 NEAT results were below 50 MPS.

Enrollment: TEEP overall fared better on NER than did the country as a whole; however, further analyses of data are required to assess accurate changes in the NER status. With the implementation of BEIS in 2002-03, NER was computed on the basis of the 6-11 age cohort. End-of-project NER on the basis of the new population group shows a decline from 2002-2003 for both TEEP and the country as a whole, although the decline is three percentage points less for TEEP than it was nationwide.8 Possible causes of decrease could be a lower-than-expected growth of in this age cohort, which was projected to increase by two percent overall, based on the 2000 census data (although the population in the TEEP divisions showed a projected increase of a much steeper five percent between 2002-03 and 2004-05; GOP PCR, appendix 12). The BEIS team noted that it is likely that fewer children are entering schools at the required age of six as compared with children at age seven. Thus,

15

another possible cause of lower-than-expected enrollment could be parents' reluctance to send children to school at a younger age. The BEIS is currently conducting analysis of the enrollment data to identify potential reasons for the NER decline. The 2004-2005 enrollment ratios ranged between 68.8 percent in Agusan del Sur to 97.2 percent in E. Samar.

The actual number of 6-11 year old students enrolled in the TEEP divisions also decreased by one percent between 2002-03 and 2004-05 from 1,418,664 to 1,404,032 students. The estimated population increased, however, from 1,674,095 to 1,765,294 (five percent). The SAR had estimated the projected 7-12 population in the original 26 divisions to be 2,184,199 in 2002-03, a difference of 510,104 from the more recent estimates, which is probably due to the four divisions that were subsequently excluded from the project.9

The evaluation report prepared for JBIC (pg. 2-4) cites an increase of 3.4 percentage points in NER, from 92.5 percent to 96.0 percent between 1999 and 2002, possibly reflecting an increasing trend. The data are based on the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey involving 40,000 randomly selected households. The non-TEEP, non-ARMM enrollment ratio rose from 95.3 to 97.2 percent. However, these data would pertain to the 7-12 age cohort. Thus, the current data on enrollments are insufficient to determine accurately the change in the NER status.

Completion: TEEP completion rate improved from baseline, while the rate for

the country as a whole remained about the same. Between 2002-03 and 2004-05, the completion rate increased only slightly from 60.2 to 61.4 percent, while the nationwide indictor declined from 64.8 to 63.3 percent.10 However, the completion rate increased roughly 6.4 percentage points between 1996 and 2005 from a baseline of 55 percent (based on all TEEP provinces at the time), but declined by 0.7 percentage points nationwide. Division-by-division data show uneven performance, with completion rate improving for 10 divisions but declining for 13 between 2002-03 and 2004-05. The division-level completion data ranged from 48.6 in Apayao (which declined) to 90.5 in E. Samar (which improved significantly) in 2005.

Student Achievement: TEEP's strongest result is with respect to student

achievement, as evidenced through the overall TEEP performance on NSBA and NAT assessments. NSBA. TEEP schools performance improved significantly on the NSBA overall score, by 5.8 percentage points (p<.05) between baseline year (1999) and 2004-05 (although the school samples were not the same). Using just the 2003-2005 sample, TEEP school performance did not improve significantly between the two school years (2003 and 2005). However, the TEEP score was significantly higher (5.9, p<.05) than that of the comparable non-TEEP sample in 2005. The TEEP sample schools also performed significantly better in each grade level and in the individual subject areas tested (see NSBA 2005 technical report). Data disaggregated by type of school (e.g., multigrade, monograde, etc.) were not available to the ICR team; and division-level results are not reported here, as the division-level samples may not be robust. (The ICR mission did not have information available regarding the sampling

16

frame and the robustness of the division-level samples.)

NAT. Analysis of nationwide NAT data shows a large improvement in the mean rank of TEEP schools.11 Each school was ranked in the country on the basis of its NAT scores in 2002-03 and 2004-05 and its change in rank was calculated between these two school years. The analysis shows that the mean rank of TEEP ELS schools improved by 2,846 between 2002-03 and 2004-05.12 In comparison, the improvement in the mean rank was lower for the schools located in two clusters of non-poor divisions: the mean rank improvement for National Capital Region (NCR) was 2,186, and the mean rank improvement for Pampanga+ schools, another group of non-poor divisions, was 975. At 746, the change in mean rank was positive for non-ELS TEEP schools as well. Other groups of divisions either declined or improved less dramatically. However, data disaggregated at the individual TEEP division-level shows that not all TEEP divisions improved; in fact, the mean ranking of nine divisions declined. Nonetheless, their MPS score improved between 2002-03 and 2004-05. (Although this latter comparison is not strictly valid due to the differences in the grade levels tested –grade four in 2003 and grade six in 2005 – it provides an indication of the direction of the divisional performance). Analysis using a difference-in-difference approach with the NAT MPS data is not yet available. Annex 10.1 provides division-by-division data on change in achievement rank and completion rates. Department of education capacity through information-based decision-making and school-based grants The project monitoring and evaluation subcomponent was established to ensure a robust system of data to track project implementation, progress, and outcomes, and to use the information generated for building capacity for transparent planning and policymaking at all levels of the education system. It was also instituted for improving management oversight and to provide support for project implementation. The project MIS built upon the core database of the DepED BEIS, which includes information on student enrollment and other key school information, such as school name, type of school, location, and so on. The system was envisioned to support the modernization of the DepED MIS and to establish the proposed DepED information and communication center. The MIS database includes additional elements, such as the results of the NSBA, and is electronically populated at the division-level and linked to the BEIS. Divisions without internet access to the database provide a CD of the database for CPISU input. The project has succeeded in enhancing capacity of DepED staff and other administrative staff involved in the project at all levels of the system, although support is clearly necessary at the division and school levels (see section 2.3). The project also successfully supported 3,069 divisional grants (of which 2,990 have been completed and the remaining grants are ongoing) through SIIF, which were also considered to be an important aspect of capacity building at the local level. A total of 2,583 schools (30 percent) took advantage of the SIIF, including 726 multigrade (17 percent of all multigrade schools) and 836 large monograde and 1,021 small monograde schools (47 percent of all

17

monograde schools). The SIIF projects focused on several types of interventions, including: production, development and printing of instructional materials, and development to instructional programs, specifically for underserved and disadvantaged students. All divisions except one, E. Samar, exceeded their targets; E. Samar completed only 59 percent of its projects. The ICR mission interviews and document reviews revealed that the SIIF grants were clearly empowering, and, in coordination with the SBM component, provided schools with the autonomy to experiment with solutions that were specific to their environment. Linkages between outputs and outcomes The project results were achieved clearly due to the level of resources injected into the education system as well as the ways in which those resources were provided and the ways in which they were utilized. The emphasis on civil works and furniture ensured that physical capacity was not only available, but that the physical environment was attractive to parents and children to attend school safely and comfortably; the provision of textbooks and teaching materials ensured that the curriculum could be implemented and both teachers and students had access to key educational resources needed for teaching and learning; and the provision of extensive capacity building ensured that the resources being provided were used well and the knowledge and skills of the education staff were enhanced for management and teaching. The management and information system and the student assessment components introduced much-needed rigor in developing and implementing data-based planning, programming, and assessing performance. In addition, a clear catalyst for change was SBM, which served as the central integrating framework for directing project inputs and building local capacity for education planning and program implementation beginning in school year 2003-04. The core features of SBM included designing a five-year School Improvement Plan (SIP) in partnership with the parents and the community and using systematic data such as student achievement (based on school, division, or national tests) and students' language needs. Although small in terms of its share of project funds (about one percent, providing roughly PhP 1,000 per month per school), SBM was explicitly designed to yield large dividends: mobilize community support for the school; catalyze ownership of the education process and outcomes; and enhance transparency. SIIF similarly provided impetus for local planning and programming. SBM implementation was a gradual process, beginning with the principal-led school building program and school-based procurement of furniture, which empowered school heads to manage a portion of the school resources and oversee capital improvements of their buildings. This is not to say that there were no implementation problems, or that the quality of the inputs and implementation processes was uniformly high. For example, the implementation of SBM has highlighted clear issues that need to be addressed going forward, including: (a) how the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the various community stakeholders should be defined and clarified in devising school improvement plans; and (b) what roles and responsibilities teachers-in-charge should have in SBM, given time constraints. Several

18

school heads interviewed noted the time-consuming nature of managing community relations, in addition to other responsibilities, such as providing instructional leadership. Furthermore, they emphasized that they want the community "involved, but not too involved." A separate evaluation of the SBM, sponsored by CPISU, is forthcoming. Many of the schools the ICR mission visited did not have 1:1 textbook ratio or adequate furniture, indicating distribution problems. Furthermore, students in several schools visited by the ICR mission were not allowed to take workbooks and notebooks home, potentially restricting parental involvement in education and limiting valuable time for learning. Distance to school still remains an issue with respect to access in remote areas. However, a trial and error approach and experimentation ensured that the use of project resources was broadly in the right direction. Less clear is the contribution of the policy research component (including the studies under SIIF national window) of the project to meeting the project objectives. Although a number of research reports have been produced, and an inventory for the research completed is ready, the dissemination is weak, and recommendations have yet to be mainstreamed into policy. This fact implies that a key link in maintaining and mainstreaming knowledge into DepED operations is currently missing. Other research studies were not implemented. For example, the National Educational Testing and Research Center proposal to develop and standardize achievement tests was delayed and will not be completed, although a national policy on student achievement is currently under development. Finally, it should be noted that many of the TEEP schools are also beneficiaries of other projects, such as UNICEF's program of child-friendly schools, which also potentially contribute to the observed outcomes in this project. 3.3 Efficiency No NVP, ERR, or FRR was calculated for the project, and no analyses are available to assess the current status. However, the SAR presented supporting evidence regarding the investment choices (see Annex 5). The SAR also cited a cost-effectiveness study in the Philippines that showed: The difference in student achievement between students with textbooks and those without ranged from 0.17 to 0.22 of a standard deviation in mathematics and Filipino, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio was 253 pesos per standard deviation of student achievement in mathematics; and the cost-effectiveness ratio for classroom furniture was 164 pesos per standard deviation of student achievement in mathematics. The SAR also estimated the increase in the completion rate, if the quality of three education inputs (supplies, building, and teacher quality) were improved by 50 percent. In addition, the SAR provided simulations of the effect of the provision of workbooks, classroom furniture,

19

and both, on increase in achievement, which ranged from 7.5 to 20 percent in NEAT mathematics scores. The investment choices were grounded in research, but the project's efficiency in attaining the key objectives – enrollment, completion, and student achievement – cannot be accurately benchmarked due to lack of post-project completion comparative analyses in the Philippines. Nonetheless, in addition to the indicators discussed in this document under section 3.2, the project-supported gains in efficiency can be judged by the indicators discussed below, although not all gains are precisely quantified and compared against benchmarks or alternatives. Achievement. The quality of education has improved (see section 3.2). Additional analyses show that the percent of schools reaching the 75 MPS mastery level in mathematics was 33 percent for TEEP ELS and 24 percent for other TEEP schools in 2005. In contrast, the next highest proportion of schools – 26 percent – reaching this mastery level was in Pampanga+, a non-poor group of divisions. A similar pattern is evident for all subjects combined (see the JBIC report). The project cost roughly PhP 845 pesos per year per enrolled child (based on total project cost in pesos, including LGU contributions, divided by an estimate of the total number of children enrolled during the eight plus years of the project).i[13] A rough cost-effectiveness ratio, using the overall NSBA gain in student achievement from 1999 to 2005, was PhP 834 per student per standard deviation gain. The cost-effectiveness ratio comparing TEEP versus non-TEEP 2005 NSBA scores was similar at 837 pesos per standard deviation. The actual difference in achievement in each case was about one standard deviation.14 The per capita cost in the Philippines for elementary education was PhP 4,811 in 1998 and PhP 5,725 in 2004 (in nominal terms).ii[15]TEEP provinces were allocated an additional PhP 57 in 1998 and PhP 311 in 2004, for a total of PhP 4,848 in 1998 and PhP 6,036 in 2004. If we assume that 60 percent of the project funds were spent on civil works (based on actual IBRD expenditures) and the remaining were provided on top of the per pupil expenditures noted above, the "extra" per pupil costs would amount to PhP 311 for MOOE (2004) and PhP 338 project funds, for a total of PhP 649 in 2004. Using this figure, at the higher end, the overall gain in student achievement cost an extra 11 percent per student per year. The ICR team is unable to comment on whether the gains justify the extra cost due to lack of comparative data. However, the government could further analyze these data and develop benchmarks for the future. Time for completing civil works. The principal-led construction was typically completed in 90 days as compared to 120 days required for LGU-led construction. Estimates by the JBIC review based on a small sample show that the average cost per room for a two-story six monograde-classroom building was PhP 465,260 for the construction completed between 2002-2005, as opposed to PhP 562,800 under the Department of Public Works and Highways, for a savings of PhP 97,540 or 17 percent. Similarly, savings for a one-story six monograde-classroom building was estimated to be six percent. Textbook costs and availability. Textbooks costs were reduced by at least 40 percent and

20

took less time, 12 months, to procure than the standard of 24-36 months in previous years. The project achieved an overall 1:1 textbook:student ratio (rather than the 2:1 target) within the same budget envelop, due to combining procurement with the Second Social Expenditure Management Project (SEMP), also funded by the World Bank. Bidding time was reduced from 24 months to 3 months. The question is whether the gains achieved can be sustained and spread to other provinces given budget requirements. As discussed in section 2.5, GOP plans to mainstream key processes of the project, and the Bank is supporting this effort through the NPSBE project. The analyses included in the NPSBE Project Appraisal Document (RN 35445-PH) shows that the plans to redeploy teachers will result in substantial yearly savings (reducing expenditures by PhP 2.1 to PhP 9.4 billion). LGU implementation of the school building program is expected to result in savings of another PhP2.4 billion to PhP3.4 billion. GOP has identified other sources of funds as well. Thus, the project gains are expected to continue. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory. The rating of "satisfactory" is justified on the following basis:

• TEEP objectives remained highly relevant to issues facing the elementary education sub-sector in the Philippines; and

• The key performance indicators show that the project contributed successfully to student achievement and the elementary completion rate (not vis-à-vis targets, but as compared to the situation that prevailed before project implementation). NER data are potentially problematic (see section 3.2 above); and therefore, it is difficult to assess the impact of the project on student enrollment. However, all three TEEP indicators compare favorably to those of the country as a whole or other comparator groups at the time of project completion.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (If any, where not previously covered or to amplify discussion above). (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development The operation had a significant positive effect on community involvement in education, which was one of the intermediate outcomes expected through SBM. The ICR team visited some formerly conflict-ridden areas (in Cotabato), where the TEEP schools have played an important role in catalyzing community cooperation. A visible aspect of community support is the amount of locally raised funding for schools: a 10 percent random sample of TEEP schools in 17 divisions showed that, on average, they had been successful in doubling the annual amount of locally raised funds raised per year after TEEP implementation from sources other than government and the Parent-Teacher-Community Association (JBIC report). The SBM grants in fact constituted, on average, only 33 percent of the funds available at the school level.

21

Survey data collected as part of NSBA also showed that TEEP students and teachers had significantly more positive attitudes toward school and learning than did non-TEEP teachers and students (the magnitude of the difference was 10 and 17 percent of standard deviation, respectively.) (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening Successful SBM implementation has yielded lessons and materials that area being incorporated for SBM nationwide through BESRA (discussed in section 2.5). The MIS system has provided lessons regarding the use of information systems and data for planning and policymaking, particularly at the division and school levels. Division-level planning and supervision systems have been strengthened as a result of participating in project planning and MIS. Local planning and curriculum development have been strengthened due to the SIIF grants and SBM. INSET experiences and materials have been shared with the Teacher Education Council and some teacher training institutes, but need to be disseminated more widely. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative, if any) The project has contributed to the development of an efficient procurement system in DepED. The project improved on existing procedures and introduced innovations in procurement systems for school furniture, textbooks and instructional materials. For example, TEEP decentralized bidding for goods at the division level for greater efficiency (speed) and created the Division Procurement Inspectorate to ensure the quality of goods. TEEP also helped to standardize several (27) architectural designs for schools (depending on terrain and climate), which can be easily used elsewhere in the country. The principal-led school building program has been mainstreamed into DepED's regular civil works program and has been adopted in some new donor-funded projects (e.g., the Spanish government grant on school buildings). 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops A brief beneficiary assessment and survey show relatively good stakeholder engagement and participation in the project activities. The project conducted a beneficiary assessment in 2006. The survey showed that 90 percent of the students interviewed in the 485 schools visited were aware of the project. On a scale of 1 to 4, (1=not involved at all; 2=not very involved; 3=involved; 4=very much involved), the mean ratings of the involvement of was 3.7 for school heads, 3.4 for teachers, and 3.4 for Parent-Teacher-Community Association and barangay officials. Another survey conducted

22

as part of the SBM evaluation showed that 65 percent community members reported high involvement in formulation of SIP, and 62 percent reported high involvement in formulation of Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Low or Negligible. At present time, there appears to be no risk to the development outcomes of the project, given the approaches being incorporated in BESRA. (Also see section 2.5). 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory. The project design was innovative and focused on key issues facing the sector. However, the Bank initially did not pay sufficient attention to the risk scenarios associated with the humancapacity and financial preconditions necessary for taking the decentralized approachproposed in the SAR (see section 2.1). (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory. Although supervision and follow-up were regular (18 missions during project duration), thequality of the supervision in the project's initial years was insufficiently focused on resolvingissues in project management and implementation. The ISRs show that the project received "unsatisfactory" ratings on the development objective close to the mid-term review, but the implementation progress continued to be rated as "satisfactory" (except once in mid-1999). However, after the mid-term review and agreement on restructuring project management andimplementation, a review of the ISRs and back-to-office reports shows that supervision became more effective and collaborative, with an emphasis on attention to developmentimpact and follow-up on agreed-upon actions. Discussions with clients reveal that especiallyimportant was the Bank team's focus on identifying problems and taking a collaborative and constructive approach to finding common solutions, building trust with the client, andseeking a partnership rather than playing an "auditor" role. Implementation issues wereaddressed immediately, and communication channels between the project management unitand the Bank were regular and open. The team's focus evolved gradually from procurementand input issues to an emphasis on solutions to achieve outcomes. For example, the road toSBM was first trialed through the school-based building program. The latter years focused also on the quality of the various specific education component inputs, including a rigorousfocus on measuring quality through assessments, and with an emphasis on sustainability. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance

23

Rating: Satisfactory. In light of the project's turnaround and intensive efforts of the Bank to resolve issues andassist the government, overall Bank Performance merits a rating of "satisfactory." 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory. Government performance is satisfactory. The central government provided counterpart fundsto achieve key objectives, resolved issues in procurement, and ensured that the issues identified in the mid-term review were addressed proactively. It also adopted several measures that helped to facilitate project implementation (e.g., in July 2004 DepED adviseddivisions to drill down the regular MOOE to schools which supported SBM). Furthermore, BESRA supported the project's decentralization thrust. (Also see section 2.2.) (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory. Implementing Agency: Department of Education

Performance. Implementing agency performance is satisfactory. Adequate planning, management, monitoring and evaluation arrangements were put in place at the department level and in the division-level project offices to ensure that inputs were provided as planned, data were collected for planning, programming, and monitoring, and issues were resolved rapidly. Regular supervision missions, use of the project MIS, and instituting quality assurance procedures in procurement, civil works, and SBM, ensured a robust system project implementation and oversight. Also helpful was the development of several materials and manuals for the various project components, including the principal-led school building program. The Implementing agency performance became extremely effective, efficient, and supportive of the project after the management structure was reorganized to include organic DepED staff in key positions with technical consultants working in-house as a team. (Also see section 2.2) (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory. Overall rating is based on satisfactory Government and Implementing Agency performance. 6. Lessons Learned Visible successes are a key motivator for change; demonstrate results with a few pilots first. SBM was rapidly accepted by all stakeholders, because it was tried and was successful in a few schools on a piece-meal basis first.

24

Information dissemination and capacity building play a significant role in the successful implementation of decentralized systems such as SBM. Also important is learning by doing, experimenting, and being willing to make mid-course corrections. Local empowerment for planning and implementing locally developed plans, even with small amounts of money, results in greater ownership and transparency. Participation of local stakeholders in school improvement planning and implementation is critical to achieving desired learning outcomes and to mobilizing much-needed resources. However, clear delineation of roles and responsibilities within a decentralized environment is critical to the success of such a reform strategy. Accountability systems, with clear performance criteria, are critical factors for effective and efficient project implementation. The (later) cost-sharing arrangements between LGUs and the DepED piloted in the TEEP on school building construction instilled and developed a sense of ownership, which led to greater concern for and participation in the monitoring of construction and repair works and in the maintenance of classrooms. Readily available and targeted technical assistance (for example, for school building program as it was being done) is important in achieving timely and quality outputs. The credibility of the results of any national assessments for students is enhanced when its administration involves independent examiners and monitors. The presence of a legal or policy cover to support new ways of doing business is essential for experimentation. Last, but not least, a focus on identifying problems and seeking solutions as a coherent, collaborative Bank-client team is important for achieving results. The Bank teams' role in creating an atmosphere of trust and partnership is paramount for effective implementation and desired results. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies Borrower comments are in Annex 7. (b) Cofinanciers Cofinancier’s comments are in Annex 8. (c) Other partners and stakeholders

25

26

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal

Estimate (USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 6.70 17.55 261.94

POLICY AND DECISION MAKING 9.60 21.34 222.29 DECENTRALIZED IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

11.70 22.53 192.56

LOCAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND CAPACITY BUILDING

32.50 6.63 20.40

DIVISIONAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT 421.20 153.11 36.35

Total Baseline Cost 481.70 Physical Contingencies 45.28 Price Contingencies 42.38

Total Project Costs 569.36 221.16 Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Financing Required 569.36 221.16

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Financing

Appraisal Estimate (USD

millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD

millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

113.40 82.84 73.05

JAPAN: Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) (formerly OECF)

104.80 91.07 86.90

27

Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1: Education Development INSET Training The output target was to train all 63,252 teachers and school heads. Project data indicate that all 62,251 teachers in the TEEP divisions were trained, 95 percent of whom participated in training five times or more. The project has not logged individual training records or the number of teachers trained in each subject area (to avoid double counting teachers within subject areas), although records exist regarding the number of times each teacher has been trained. The highest amount of formal training time was devoted to English (30 percent), followed by math (20 percent) and science (17 percent). Eight percent of training time was devoted to Filipino, and the remaining 19 percent to other subjects, such as utilization of textbooks and school kits. The data captured includes school-organized training. The second stream of INSET was devoted to training school managers and other non-teaching staff in civil works, procurement, student assessment, monitoring and evaluation, advocacy, and school-based management. A total of 116,660 hours of training were devoted to covering these topics. A key feature of this component was the E-FILERMAT training (Effective Instructional Leadership and Educational Resource Management Training), which was conducted from the Center in support of SBM and was targeted at school principals, head-teachers, and teacher-in-charge. However, only 13 percent of this group underwent this training, while the remaining 87 percent were trained at the division-level using the E-FILERMAT materials. INSET was gradually devolved from division-initiated training to school cluster-based training in the last three years of the project, which comprised 81 percent of training offered through the project. Divisions and schools were supported in designing their training materials (guidelines on conducing INSET, training needs assessments, good classroom practices) that were distributed from DepED to the divisions down to the schools. The project had originally planned to track whether INSET led to changes in teacher behavior and the amount of time devoted to teaching. A survey-based study, conducted by JBIC researchers in two divisions, Leyte and Abra, indicates that the participants found the quality of the school-based training to be high, with 82 percent of them stating that it had a high impact on them, and 70 percent stating that the division-based INSET had a high impact on them. Ninety-five percent of the school head respondents noted that the alignment of the training was with student performance was good, but almost half indicated that they had difficulty in aligning training to the school performance goals.17 Although analyses covering all divisions are not available on training quality, the ICR field visits indicate that the benefits of training are palpable at the school-level. The ICR team found that the training was relevant and the beneficiaries (teachers and other education staff) were motivated, inspired, and using the information, skills, and knowledge they had gained. A follow up study was

28

recommended, but did not take place. School Improvement and Innovation Facility The SIIF funding comprised two parts, a divisional and a national window. The divisional window funds were set aside for awarding grants to schools for specific initiatives that addressed problems identified in the school improvement plans. The grants were based on eligibility criteria set by the Division Appraisal Committee. The grants were aimed at factors related to reducing student dropout, increasing students' access, and improving students' learning outcomes. The target for divisional window was set at 2,261 grants, and for the national window it was 362 (eight for the supply side – such as research studies – and the remaining for school-based demand side). Table 1: SIIF targets and accomplishments, by type of SIIF

Window Target Achievement Divisional Window 2,261 3,069

2,990 (complete) National Window 3 (complete)

4 (ongoing) Supply Side 8 3 (complete)

4 (ongoing) Demand Side: School-Based 356 275 projects in 524

schools Demand Side: ACTF 633 Schools

The project successfully supported 3,069 divisional grants (of which 2,990 have been completed and the remaining grants are ongoing). A total of 2,583 schools (30 percent) took advantage of the SIIF, including 726 multigrade (17 percent of all multigrade schools), 836 large monograde, and 1,021 small monograde schools (47 percent of all monograde schools). The per-pupil grant size ranged from PhP 394 to 566. The projects focused on several types of interventions, including: production, development and printing of instructional materials, and development of instructional programs, specifically for underserved and disadvantaged students. All divisions except one, E. Samar, exceeded their targets; E. Samar completed only 59 percent of its projects. On the other hand, the national window continued to experience considerable delays in the procurement and approval process. Although seven studies were contracted by DepED, only three were completed by end-August 2006; the remaining studies are due for completion in December. The DepED plans to review the results of the studies to assess what findings might be applicable for program and policy services by the Program and Planning Division of the Planning Service. Finally, the demand side financing of the national window funded 275 school-based projects benefiting 524 schools (48 large monograde, 176 small monograde – six percent of all monograde schools – and 300 multigrade – seven percent of all multigrade schools). It also

29

funded the Adopt-A-Child Trust Fund (ACTF), which supports school-community partnerships and grants about PhP 100,000 for beneficiary schools and requires a 10 percent matching funds from the local community. The funds are deposited in a Bank, along with the 10 percent counterpart funds from the local community, and the annual interest is used to assist the school beneficiaries. Six hundred and thirty three schools and 232 districts in 13 divisions took advantage of this funding facility. Textbook and Instructional Materials At the time of project appraisal, the textbook:student ratio was grim at 1:4 (estimated in SAR), and ranged from 1:3 in Benguet to 1:6 in Antique. The SAR set the target ratio at 2:1 (one set of four textbooks for two students), and 10,164,625 textbooks and supplementary materials were to be distributed. The project succeeded in exceeding the ratio to attain an overall 1:1 textbook:student ratio in English, Math, Science, and Filipino. Teachers also received the Philippine Education Learning Competencies of curriculum standards for grades 1-6. This was no mean achievement, given the complexities of the distribution system. Some glitches, however, remain. The ICR mission observed that in fact the 1:1 ratio is not evenly distributed at the school level, due to lack of updated information on enrollments and problems in communication between schools and their division offices. The Textbook Exchange Program, which the DepED started in 2004, will need to be undertaken in divisions with this problem. The ICR mission also noted that the use of textbooks is not yet optimal, with some schools the mission visited not allowing the students to take the books and workbooks home, and others with insufficient numbers of workbooks. Textbooks, accompanying teacher manuals, supplementary teaching materials, and other instructional materials were also provided on the basis of needs. For example, teachers were provided classroom kits of visual aids and manipulative materials, and multilevel materials for use in multigrade classrooms. The DepED developed the Textbook Count Project in 2003 together with civil society organizations, which ensured that the textbooks and teacher's manuals procured by DepED were delivered to and received by intended recipients. This was done on a regular basis. A feedback mechanism on the satisfaction with and utilization of the textbooks was also to have been established. The textbook procurement was combined with that of SEMP, beginning in 2002, which led to at least 40 percent cost savings per textbook due to volume discounts and international competitive bidding, which made the procurement process more competitive and transparent than before (internal Bank document). The subcomponent sought to ensure appropriate utilization of the materials, support the development and utilization of culturally relevant curriculum, and foster the implementation of innovative teaching and learning strategies. Thus, local educators were also empowered to develop their own materials, localize the curriculum to meet the needs of their ethnic student populations, and use innovative pedagogies. To ensure quality of the content, the materials were evaluated by a group of accredited personnel in the IMCS, DepEd, together with the specialists from Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE). Twenty four percent of such

30

materials were approved, with others conditionally approved for further revision. Student Assessment (SA) The SA and formative assessments were implemented for the purposes of continuous feedback on student learning and to generate information for planning and implementation of education programs and policies at the school, division, and central levels. For example, the student achievement data were to be used to inform the content and design of INSET and to improve teacher capacity for instruction. Student assessment was implemented through the NSBA and training of teachers and school heads in formative assessments. In addition, education staff at the National Education Testing and Research Center, BEE, and staff of regional and divisional offices received technical assistance in designing and analyzing standardized tests. The NSBA was administered in 1999 to establish a baseline, and subsequently in 2001, 2003, and 2005, to Grades 2, 4, and 6 in four subject areas: English, Mathematics, Science, and Filipino. The tests were administered to 700 sampled schools in the 23 divisions, as well as 152 sampled schools in 10 non-TEEP divisions. The NSBA included a survey on students' and teachers' attitudes toward schools. The NSBA results were distributed to all sampled schools, which used the information for setting targets and prioritizing education activities, such as teacher training through SIPs. The information was used at the division and central-levels to target education inputs as well. The capacity of the divisions to formulate formative tests was reportedly enhanced through this process as well as through teacher training in the construction and use of formative assessments, analysis and utilization of data, and use of traditional and non-traditional methods in assessment. Nearly 100 percent of the teachers in all divisions were trained in all areas (with a few exceptions, such as Romblon, in which none of the teachers were provided training in the use of traditional and non-traditional methods). Student assessment data were used to recognize high performing divisions, by the Center, but the low-performing divisions were provided with technical assistance and greater monitoring by the Center. High performing schools were similarly recognized by the Center. Low performing schools –mostly multigrade schools – were given priority for monitoring and resource allocation. Although information on quality of the division-level testing systems was not systematically gathered for this ICR, the field visit revealed that at least one division's assessment methods appear to have become more robust. All schools the ICR mission visited are reporting student achievement data (whether NSBA or school-level data) as part of their annual report card to the community (see paragraph on school-based management). Thus, this component has generated awareness of the use of student assessment for the purposes of improving pedagogy and school performance.

31

Policy Research and Strategic Planning This subcomponent was designed to support research leading to recommendations for improving education planning and management. Eight research topics were identified, but studies were launched only for five of the eight topics. Results of the completed studies have been disseminated through policy seminars, monographs, and an integrative report. At TEEP's recommendation, Division of the Office of Planning. The mandate of this secretariat is to ensure that research recommendations are reviewed and relevant proposals are made to the Department Secretary. But this body's original mandate has been significantly revised, and no oversight body has been established to monitor the implementation of the recommendations. School-Based Management SBM was not a specific subcomponent per se, as it was the central integrating framework for directing project inputs and building local capacity for education planning and program implementation beginning late in the project cycle in school year 2003-04. The target for SBM was set at 6,459 or 75 percent of the 8,613 schools. The project succeeded in exceeding the target and involving 7,278 schools or 84 percent of the TEEP school population, which were supported with SBM funding. The first 2003-04 batch comprised 2,230 schools of ELS clusters, the next batch in school year 2004-05 consisted of 2,700 DDU schools, and the final batch in school year 2005-06 comprised 1,529 other schools. The remaining 25 percent were to be targeted in 2006-2007, but some joined the program ahead of schedule. Sixteen of the 23 divisions involved all schools in the SBM pilot. The key features of SBM included designing a five-year SIP in partnership with the parents and the community and using systematic data such as student achievement and students' language needs. Based on SIP, schools developed a concrete AIP at the beginning of the school year and a report card, to be shared with the community, at the end of the school year. Thus, although small in terms of its share of project funds, this TEEP feature was explicitly designed to mobilize community support for the school; catalyze ownership of the education process and outcomes; and enhance transparency and accountability. These purposes have largely been met. Almost all TEEP schools, 95 percent, developed their five- year school improvement plans (SIPs) and the associated AIP. Although 84 percent received SBM funds (an average of PhP 1,000 per month) the remaining 1,335 schools generated funds from sources such as parents, teachers, community associations, etc., to implement their own plans. The SBM funding allocation was based on a formula that provided each school with a flat amount (40-50 percent of the SBM funds), plus an amount prorated according to the number of students and teachers and other criteria, such as percent of indigenous student population in the school. Thus the funding favored schools located in DDUs.

32

SBM received a boost from DepEd as well. In July 2004, DepED advised divisions also to drill down the regular MOOE equitably to schools, and among the TEEP divisions, six divisions released these funds directly to schools in cash. Furthermore, with SBM seed money and the mechanism for community participation in place, the schools were successful in generating additional funds from the community. The SBM was successful, largely because of intensive capacity building of school heads, beginning with E-FILERMAT and because of community involvement and advocacy. SBM Handbook and Operational Manual and five primers in one kit, including topics on construction, maintenance, and procurement, also provided much-needed how-to information, and the prior experience with school-based building program helped develop management skills. However, ICR interviews revealed that better definition of roles and responsibilities of the community members is needed, as well as of school heads (see discussion in section 3.2). Component 2: Civil Works School Building Program The project met 100 percent of its target for new classroom construction and 90 percent for repairs (see Table 2). Table 2: School construction output indicators, by target and accomplishment

Source of Funds

Total Targets Percent Completed March 31, 2001

Percent Completed June 30, 2006

New Classroom

Repaired Classroom

New Classroom

Repaired Classroom

New Classroom

Repaired Classroom

IBRD 2,355 6,678 8.7 3.1 109 88JBIC 3,042 10,432 5.8 2.9 94 91Total 5,397 17,110 7.1 3.0 100 90

Note: "Percent completed, March 31, 2001," data are from TEEP Restructuring Plan dated May 15, 2001. Fifty-six percent of the new classrooms and 71 percent of the repairs were completed under the Principal-led construction program (under supervision from DepED), and the remaining 44 percent new classrooms and 29 percent repairs were completed under the LGU-led program, later requiring 10 percent equity, with an advance from DepED repayable within a year, if needed. The component encountered a few cases of faulty design and construction and fraud, which were (or are) being duly handled. The redesigned component for school building program for 2001-2004 initially required no equity from LGUs and no MDFO involvement. However, the requirement was subsequently agreed upon at 10 percent, down from the original 25 percent. DepED was to manage the implementation, including the disbursement of GOP and loan funds; bidding and construction was to be managed by DepED and schools principals; and the SBP funds were

33

released to Divisions directly from Department of Budget and Management (DBM). DepED was also responsible for providing technical assistance at all stages of the construction (designs, bidding, awards and contracting, and construction supervision) and for documentation of loan withdrawal. LGU-led school building was phased out upon completion of the construction underway. However, their continued involvement was encouraged. The school mapping program was completed in 1998, and the results of this mapping were used for prioritizing the inputs and guiding DepED's decisions. The principal-led program (launched in 2001 under guidance from DepED) was a success, as it reduced the amount of time devoted to building from about 220 days in the LGU-led program to about 90 days. In addition, the supervision missions noted that the quality of the buildings was as good as, if not better, than the LGU-led program buildings. The success of the program is attributed to building in the summer months (when the schools are closed), having the principal on hand for supervision, provision of technical support, training of engineers for inspection and supervision, and institution of a program of quality management (the Total Quality Assurance Program). Fifty eight percent (a total of 4,994) of TEEP schools took advantage of the school building program. Among these, 1,233 were large monograde schools, 2,035 were small monograde (83 percent of all monograde schools), and 1,722 were multigrade schools (41 percent of all multigrade schools). Other Civil Works The project completed 18 new division offices, repaired two division offices and NEAP, and refurbished the TEEP central office and the DepED server room. The two division offices the ICR mission visited were complete and appeared to be well constructed. Component 3: Finance and Administration Procurement The objective of this subcomponent was to ensure that project furniture, textbooks, and materials were delivered as planned to equitably support the teaching and learning environment. Table 3 shows the number of items procured by category. Table 3: Categories of items procured, by target, percent completed, and cost

Category Target Percent Completed Cost in $ School Furniture 547,397 93 6.71 MTextbooks and Instructional Materials

10,164,625 173 17.68M

Instructional kits 67,131 113 11.49 MOther Goods 15,163 107 4.18 M

Eight two percent (7,027 schools) received school furniture; 96 percent (8,278 schools)

34

received instructional kits; and 352 schools and education offices received other goods, which included items such as computers. All schools received textbooks and instructional materials. Procurement also included the installation of DepED's Local Area Network (LAN) with 660 stations in 2004, leading to enhanced efficiency in communications. The contracting of the furniture was done through a national bidding procedure, using a DepED-led contact procedure requiring all suppliers to have inventories available at all times during the contract period (12 months). The project has worked hard over the years to solve distribution problems, including designing the textbook exchange program and instituting improved inspection processes, and most issues have been resolved through improved procedures and systems, especially after 2002. These included, for example, creating the division procurement inspectorate, which ensured the quality of the procurement and synergizing the procurement with SEMP to maximize the benefits of volume discounts. Thus, the project was able to exceed its physical targets due to the economies of scale achieved under international competitive bidding stipulated for contracts exceeding PhP 10M. The project also introduced the school-based procurement of furniture (SBPF) program with a pilot in 21 schools in one division in 2003. It was scaled up in 2004, and the delivery was speeded up, with 30 percent of the furniture procurement under SBPF. Twenty percent of TEEP schools were the beneficiaries of all component inputs. Advocacy and Information Dissemination The project paid much-needed attention to advocacy and information dissemination. A number of advocacy and information campaigns and training programs were undertaken during the project, which contributed to project implementation, especially SBM, the ways in which schools and divisions reported education accomplishments to stakeholders and the community, and sharing of best practices from TEEP initiatives, including the SIIF. Advocacy and information dissemination activities ranged from community awareness programs regarding TEEP to assistance to principals about how to communicate SBM processes to the community members through channels such as booklets, manuals, videos, and workshops. The subcomponent was integrated into the planning and implementation of all other project components. An end-of-project rigorous beneficiary assessment was planned, but did not take place due to lack of funds (see section 3.5a). Monitoring and Evaluation The M&E subcomponent was established to ensure a robust system of data to track project implementation, progress, and outcomes, and to use the information generated for building capacity for transparent planning and policymaking at all levels of the education system. It was also instituted for management oversight and to provide support for project implementation. The project MIS system was developed to be cascaded down to the schools to encourage each school to track education indicators such as enrollment, dropout, and student

35

achievement, in addition to resources such as the amount of funding generated. The school-level monitoring instruments were designed and piloted in 2002-03 and implemented TEEP-wide in 2003-2004. The school forms include information on school performance, physical maintenance, partnerships and fund management. Other aspects included development of tools for gathering information on supervisory and teacher performance for performance evaluation. The MIS is regularly updated based on information provided by divisions. The division M&E coordinators and school heads were trained in collection, analysis, and use of the data, and all ELS were provided with a computer. However, the school-level MIS forms have not yet been electronically populated, and school personnel have not yet mastered how to calculate statistics such as dropout and completion rates. As part of the M&E, the project benefited from regular monitoring and supervision and inputs from experts in the various components of the project, especially in the second half of the project's life.

36

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis The SAR presented analyses which showed that: (a) the average provincial per capita expenditure (of households) was correlated with net enrollment ratio and student achievement (no correlation coefficients were provided); (b) the incidence of poverty was lower in households headed by individuals with a college education compared to those without; (c) about one-fifth of children dropped out of school due to inaccessibility of schooling and high cost of education; unsurprisingly, the cost-to-income ratio was higher, 35 percent, for the bottom per-capita expenditure quintile as compared to five percent for the top quintile, and parental contributions to per unit cost financing had increased five fold between 1986 and 1994; (d) student absenteeism was negatively associated with school quality; and (e) research that showed that private rates of return to schooling in 1988 were highest for primary schools (18.3) percent, and the estimated social rate of return was 13.3 percent. The project was expected to reduce the costs of children going to school by improving its quality and accessibility. Thus, the private costs of education were expected to become lower than 30 percent, the estimate available from 1994. It is unclear, however, whether this expectation was realized.

37

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/SpecialtyLending Benu Bidani Lead Economist AFTP1 Team Member Francoise Delannoy Consultant HDNED Task Manager John N. Kirk Consultant LCSPS Consultant, Education Marlaine E. Lockheed Consultant WBIEG Team Member

Serge Theunynck Sr. Implementation Spec. AFTH2 Consultant, Civil Works

Cecilia D. Vales Lead Procurement Specialist EAPCO Team Member

Supervision/ICR

Preselyn Abella Financial Management Specialist EAPCO

Dominic Reyes Aumentado Procurement Spec. EAPCO

Jayshree Balachander Sr. Human Resources Spec. EASHD Task Manager

Cesar Palma Banzon Team Assistant EACPF Ernesto Diaz Consultant EAPCO Senior FM Specialist

Teresa Ho Lead Human Development Special EASHD HD Coordinator

Dingyong Hou Sr. Operations Off. EASHD Task Manager Angelina C. Ibus Operations Officer EASES N. K. Jangira Consultant SASHD Consultant-INSET Emmanuel Y. Jimenez Sector Director EASHD Policy Research Elizabeth M. King Research Manager DECRG M and E Bruno Andre Laporte Manager WBIHD HDNED Sector ManagerCynthia F. Manalastas Executive Assistant EACPF Anjali Manglik Program Assistant EXTCD Rene SD. Manuel Procurement Spec. EAPCO Parivash Mehrdadi Program Assistant EASHD Peter Russell Moock Consultant MNSHD Economist Ronaldo J. Oblepias Consultant EACPF HD Operations Officer Lynnette Dela Cruz Perez Sr. Education Spec. EASHD

Joseph G. Reyes Financial Management Specialist EAPCO

Noel Sta. Ines Procurement Spec. EAPCO Sabrina Gail Terry Program Assistant EASHD

38

Christopher J. Thomas Sector Manager EASHD Fe Timonera Finance Officer LOAG1 Alfonso F. de Guzman Consultant AFTH1 Sr. Education Specialist

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks

USD Thousands (including travel and

consultant costs) Lending

FY95 85.45 FY96 252.07 FY97 75.60 FY98 0.00 FY99 0.00 FY00 0.09 FY01 0.00 FY02 0.00 FY03 0.00 FY04 0.02 FY05 0.00 FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00

Total: 413.23 Supervision/ICR

FY95 0.00 FY96 0.81 FY97 64.09 FY98 114.95 FY99 110.67 FY00 40 75.11 FY01 23 58.08 FY02 19 47.37 FY03 22 88.90 FY04 24 81.07 FY05 23 70.23 FY06 7 7.03 FY07 10 34.60

Total: 168 752.91

39

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Beneficiary Assessment

A beneficiary assessment was conducted as part of a monitoring and technical assistance mission by the TEEP CPISU and the Division Project Implementation Support Units (DPISU) from July 2005 to January 2006 to schools that had not been visited in the last two years. These schools were located in the DDU areas of the 23 project divisions. The specific objective of the mission was to interview school heads, selected teachers, pupils and community members regarding their awareness of, level of participation in, and degree of satisfaction with TEEP implementation. Monitoring teams visited 485 schools (260 monograde and 225 multigrade) and interviewed 440 school heads, 1,784 teachers, 1,603 Parent-Teacher-Community Association representatives and barangay officials, and 5,080 pupils.

Results showed that ninety percent of the pupils interviewed were found to be aware of TEEP, particularly of the different inputs their schools had received. Ninety-nine percent also expressed happiness with the usefulness of the inputs for their studies.

Mean ratings on the project stakeholders' level of involvement in, and satisfaction with, the project were similarly favorable. On a scale of one to four (1 = "not involved" to 4 = "very involved"), respondents' mean ratings on their level of involvement in the implementation of the project were above the scale mid-point, as follows: 3.69 for school heads, followed by 3.38 for the Parent-Teacher-Community Association representatives, and 3.37 for the teachers. Respondents also provided ratings of their satisfaction with the project on a scale of one to four (1 = "not satisfied at all" to 4 = "fully satisfied"). The respondents' mean ratings were as follows: 3.47 for school heads; 3.29 for Parent-Teacher-Community representatives, and 3.25 for teachers. Table 1 below provides the mean ratings by type of respondent and divisions.

Table 1: Mean Beneficiary Ratings, by Type of Beneficiary and Division

Level of Involvement in Project Implementation

Degree of Satisfaction with Project Divisions

School Heads

Teachers PTCA School Heads

Teachers PTCA

Agusan del Sur 3.57 3.28 3.61 3.35 3.16 3.38 Antique 3.79 3.68 3.59 3.50 3.41 3.41 Benguet 3.57 3.22 3.54 3.57 3.31 3.13 Guimaras 3.79 3.78 3.35 3.70 3.73 2.90 Ifugao 3.57 3.36 3.37 3.21 3.11 2.19 Surigao del Sur 3.73 3.51 3.55 3.47 3.30 3.27 Biliran 3.68 3.35 3.33 3.57 3.22 3.04 Cotabato 3.76 3.17 3.39 3.65 2.99 3.21 Leyte 3.73 3.47 3.36 3.46 3.20 3.29 Masbate 3.55 3.06 3.16 3.20 2.99 2.85 Negros Oriental 3.72 3.44 3.56 3.47 3.33 3.26

40

Romblon 3.63 3.25 2.69 3.37 3.01 3.19 Southern Leyte 3.69 3.47 3.33 3.78 3.50 3.07 Zamboanga del Sur 3.74 3.12 3.46 3.46 2.99 3.71 Zamboanga Sibugay 3.72 3.51 3.59 3.41 3.46 3.46 Abra 3.84 3.20 3.40 3.46 3.05 3.34 Apayao 3.90 3.28 3.46 3.56 3.24 3.37 Aurora 3.84 3.38 3.76 3.64 3.42 3.74 Batanes 3.88 3.71 3.57 3.57 3.63 3.63 Capiz 3.66 3.34 3.47 3.57 3.25 3.32 Eastern Samar 3.68 3.41 3.27 3.24 3.20 3.12 Kalinga 3.50 3.34 2.87 3.26 3.22 2.86 Mt. Province 3.71 3.52 3.20 3.43 3.23 3.01 TEEP 3.69 3.37 3.38 3.47 3.25 3.29

Note: PTCA stands for Parent-Teacher-Community Association.

41

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

42

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Borrower's comments are included unedited. Executive Summary of Borrower's ICR The year 2006 marked the end of nine year investment program of the Department of Education (DepEd) – the Third Elementary Education Project or TEEP. With the funding from the World Bank and Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the TEEP successfully overcame all difficulties and challenges in order to deliver what it was intended for, i.e., improving the quality of elementary education in 23 poorest provinces. Specially, it aimed to (i) improve learning achievements, completion rates, and access to quality elementary education, (ii) build institutional capacity of the Department to manage change, and (iii) actively involve the community and local government in a large-scale effort to attain quality education. Project Background The Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) was a seven-year, public investment program of the Department of Education (DepED) with external financing from World Bank (WB) and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). Implementation commenced in 1998 and should have been completed in 2004. But its three and a half years (1998-2001) of implementation has been a record of difficulties and challenges. In the mid-term review mission commissioned by the funding agencies, it was concluded that: (i) the project design was ambitious, (ii) the assumption for rapid decentralization of education management to Local Government Units (LGUs) was optimistic, (iii) inordinate pressure on poor LGUs to provide equity share and the lack of engineering capacity proved to be bottlenecks; and (iv) project management structure was complex. So, the project was restructured in mid 2001 and its completion was extended to June 30, 2006 for both World Bank and JBIC. JBIC disbursements closed on the same day while WB gave a four month extension on disbursements. The restructured TEEP adhered to the same goal of improving the quality of elementary education. It had the same objectives as in the original design: (i) improve learning achievements, completion rates and access to quality elementary education, (ii) build institutional capacity of DepED to manage change, and (iii) actively involve the community and local government in a large-scale effort to attain quality education. TEEP was intended to be a laboratory of educational reforms that involved planning by stakeholders, social targeting, decentralization, and school-focused and information-based decision making. The Project originally covered 26 school divisions known as the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) provinces but these were later reduced to 22 in 1999. The excluded provinces were Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and Maguindanao. The 22 provinces include Abra, Apayao, Aurora, Batanes, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, Masbate, Mt. Province and Romblon for Luzon; Antique, Biliran, Capiz, Guimaras, Eastern Samar, Negros Oriental, Leyte and Southern Leyte for Visayas; and Agusan del Sur, Cotabato, Surigao del Sur and Zamboanga del Sur for Mindanao. But in 2004, Zamboanga Sibugay which used to be part of Zamboanga del Sur was recognized as a separate

43

division and became the 23rd TEEP division. In these 23 school divisions, 8,613 elementary schools, 376 municipalities, 62,251 teachers and administrators and 1.7 million pupils were recipients of the Project. The original nine project components 1. Civil Works (CW), 2. In-Service Training (INSET), 3. Student Assessment (SA), 4. School Improvement and Innovation Facility (SIIF), 5. Accounting, Budget and Finance, 6. Procurement, 7. Education Management and Information System (E-MIS) and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), 8. Information, Education, Communication and Advocacy (IECA), and 9. Policy Research and Strategic Planning (PRSP) were organized into three major components: (i) Civil Works, (ii) Education Development, and (iii) Finance and Administration with subcomponents as shown in the table below. Consulting services, although treated as a separate loan category, is subsumed under the Finance and Administration component through the Accounting, Budget and Finance subcomponent. A new list of indicators for project implementation and project impact are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 1 Indicators of Project Implementation

School Level (Aggregated by Division) 1. Total usable classrooms (number of classroom units constructed and repaired) 2. Total number of SIIF projects completed 3. Total usable textbooks and other supplementary materials 4. Total number of teachers and school heads trained 5. Total school furniture and kits delivered 6. Total number of equipment and other goods delivered 7. List of schools with interventions and benefits in database 8. Total number of schools with School Improvement Plan (SIP) and Annual

Implementation Plan (AIP) 9. Total number of schools with School-Based Management Fund (SBMF) 10. TEEP funds disbursed

Division Level Total number of division offices constructed/rehabilitated 1. Total amount of direct TEEP releases to Divisions from Department of Budget and

Management (DBM) in pesos

For project impact indicators, Table 2, the range of targets was collaboratively agreed upon by the management teams of Central Project Implementation Support Unit (CPISU) and Division Project Implementation Support Unit (DPISU) in consideration of baseline data and inputs that will be provided to schools.

44

TABLE 2 Indicators of Project Impact

Indicator Target

1. Participation Rate 91 – 95%

2. Completion Rate 58 – 78%

3. Achievement Level Baseline NSBA (Grades 2, 4 & 6) 1999: 29-50 MPS NAT (Grades 4,5 & 6) 2003: 29-50 MPS

2005: 40-75 MPS 2005: 40-75 MPS

Physical and financial targets were set for each Project component in accordance with the agreed loan categories. These targets as indicated in Table 3 took into consideration the Project's indicators.

TABLE 4

Physical and Financial Targets

Targets Component/Categories Physical Financial

• Civil Works No. of classrooms constructed No. of classrooms repaired/rehabilitated No. of division and other offices constructed

5,397 17,110

24

6,813,013

332,847

• Textbooks and Instructional Materials

(IMs) No. of copies distributed/received by schools

10,164,625

954,278

• Goods (Other than Textbooks and IMs)

No. of school and classroom kits distributed/received by schools No. of units of furniture distributed/received by schools No. of equipment distributed/received (computers, copiers, OHP, duplicating machine, etc.)

67,131

547,397

15,163

617,849

386,103

235,172

45

• Training No. of teachers and administrators trained

62,252

656,005

• School Improvement and Innovation

Facility No. of school projects completed

2,261

522,721

• School Based Management

No. of schools implementing SBM

6,450

125,034

SubTotal 10,643,022Consultancy Services 1,115,338Admin Cost 967,919Total P12,726,279

The budget allocation by funding source (in million pesos) is as follows:

• World Bank - PhP 4,309

• JBIC - 4,508

• National government - 3,201

• LGU - 708 Total - PhP 12,726

From that amount, TEEP had a cumulative expenditure of PhP11.617 billion, PhP6.332 billion of which was spent for the construction of school buildings and division offices, and the repair of classrooms. Maintenance and operating costs of the Project including in-service training of teachers, SBM and innovative projects under SIIF used up PhP1.11 billion. A total of PhP2.10 billion was spent for the purchase of textbooks, school furniture and learning tools and office equipment for the division offices. The amount of PhP1.11 billion went to consulting services (TA contract) while PhP906 million went to personnel services and operating costs of the Project such as IECA, student assessment and monitoring and evaluation. The table below shows the expenditures by category.

CATEGORY AMOUNT SHARE IN TEEP RESOURCES

Civil Works Goods Textbooks and IMs Training

6,331,823.001,171,443.00 926, 735.00 642,386.00

55% 10% 8% 6%

46

SIIF Grant Consulting Services SBM Funds Administrative Cost

Personnel Services General Administration

405,369.001,109,740.00 116,618.00 912,485.00

208,485.00704,000.00

3% 10% 1% 8%

TOTAL 11, 616, 599.00 100% Targets and Accomplishments by Component

a. Physical Accomplishments

i. Civil Works:

The targets in the TEEP School Building Program were to build 5,397 classrooms and repair of 17,110 existing ones. The target in each participating province is shown in the next table.

TOTAL RESTRUCTURED PROJECT TARGETS

LGU LED Principal Led TOTAL Province NC R NC R NC R

World Bank 1,331 1,871 1,024 4,807 2,355 6,678 Agusan del Sur 327 245 297 525 624 770 Antique 154 495 30 567 184 1,062 Ifugao 124 161 11 213 135 374 So. Leyte 128 261 30 451 158 712 Zamboanga del Sur 256 206 176 989 432 1,195 Zamboanga Sibugay 126 43 88 974 214 1,017 Cotabato 216 460 392 1,088 608 1,548 JBIC 1,167 3,144 1,875 7,288 3,042 10,432 Benguet 106 238 50 348 156 586 Guimaras 30 138 20 78 50 216 Surigao del Sur 91 311 182 518 273 829 Romblon 15 186 40 382 55 568 Masbate 147 281 423 851 570 1,132 Negros Oriental 175 348 405 1,016 580 1,364 Biliran 14 95 18 265 32 360 Leyte 167 562 279 1,561 446 2,123 Abra 43 163 30 269 73 432 Apayao 81 38 30 110 111 148 Aurora 27 73 62 224 89 297

47

Batanes - 25 1 35 1 60 Capiz 58 284 110 677 168 961 Eastern Samar 60 206 118 517 178 723 Kalinga 55 83 69 224 124 307 Mt. Province 98 113 38 213 136 326 TOTAL 2,498 5,015 2,899 12,095 5,397 17,110

A total of 5,411 classrooms were constructed and 15,334 were repaired in 4,990 public elementary schools, or 58% of the 8,613 schools in the 23 TEEP provinces. The types of schools that benefited from the TEEP School Building Program are in the next table. Take note that 1,722 of the beneficiary schools – or 35% — were the traditionally disadvantaged multigrade schools.

Large Monograde

Small Monograde Multigrade

IFI

Total No. of Schools

with Completed

SBP

No.of Schools % No.of

Schools % No.of Schools %

WB 1,988 457 23% 838 42% 693 35% JBIC 3,002 776 27% 1,197 40% 1,029 34%

Total 4,990 1,233 25% 2,035 41% 1,722 35%

The next table shows the SBP accomplishment in new construction (NC) and repair (R) in every mode of implementation (LGU-Led or Principal-Led).

Completed Projects

LGU-Led Principal-Led Total IFI NC R NC R NC R

World Bank 1,407 1,570 1,150 4,275 2,557 5,845 JBIC 946 1,678 1,912 7,838 2,858 9,516

Total 2,353 3,248 3,062 12,113 5,415 15,361 For the LGU-led SBP, 2,353 classrooms were built and 3,248 were repaired. These represent 44% of the total number of new classrooms and 19% of all repairs in TEEP. The 3,062 new classrooms and 12,113 repairs completed through the Principal-led SBP, however, account for 57% of all accomplishments for new construction and 79% of all repairs. The table in the next page shows the completed projects in each participating province.

48

Completed Projects LGU LED Principal Led TOTAL Province

NC R NC R NC R World Bank 1,407 1,570 1,150 4,275 2,557 5,845 Agusan del Sur 367 263 231 613 598 876Antique 164 367 108 331 272 698Ifugao 115 199 71 322 186 521So. Leyte 153 349 109 475 262 824Zamboanga del Sur 292 197 156 884 448 1,081Zamboanga Sibugay 132 43 123 617 255 660Cotabato 184 152 352 1,033 536 1,185 JBIC 946 1,678 1,912 7,838 2,858 9,516 Benguet 129 172 87 447 216 619Guimaras 28 139 33 121 61 260Surigao del Sur 115 419 203 458 318 877Romblon 60 114 50 329 110 443Masbate 84 48 321 1,069 405 1,117Negros Oriental 62 20 270 1,370 332 1,390Biliran 11 42 57 214 68 256Leyte 76 134 336 1,438 412 1,572Abra 34 98 48 276 82 374Apayao 36 5 105 175 141 180Aurora 30 46 58 233 88 279Batanes 1 22 11 77 12 99Capiz 40 208 103 549 143 757Eastern Samar 50 106 111 532 161 638Kalinga 77 29 60 246 137 275Mt. Province 113 76 59 304 172 380 TOTAL 2,353 3,248 3,062 12,113 5,415 15,361

Construction of Division Offices The TEEP constructed 18 division office buildings. It completed the repair and rehabilitation of two division offices and the National Educators' Association of the Philippines, and the refurbishing of the TEEP central office and the DepED server room. Living quarters were added to the division offices to provide shelter to traveling district officials, school heads or teachers from remote villages, who need to follow up papers with the division office. The construction and rehabilitation of division offices upgraded or standardized the

49

offices' telecommunication systems and fire protection system devices. The distinctive historical, social and cultural character of each recipient division was also considered in the architectural design.

ii. Procurement

The component exceeded its targets in three of its four procurement categories. Over 17.5 million textbooks and instructional materials were distributed to TEEP schools, way over the Project's original target of 10.16 million textbooks and IMs. More books were delivered as the Project realized savings in its textbook procurement. Savings arose from reforms in procurement procedures that enhanced transparency, encouraged more bidders to participate and made the process more competitive, which drove unit prices down. The Project was also able to deliver more school kits and more office goods than its original targets. School kits are learning tools and teaching aid devices, including microscopes, body system charts, globes, maps and other models used in science and math classes. Office goods, categorized in the project as "other goods" refer to office machines and equipment delivered to central schools, district and division offices. These include desktop computers, laptops, printers, audio-visual systems and television sets for classroom instruction, photocopying machines, among others. The TEEP was not able to meet its target in the delivery of school furniture(armchairs, tables with chairs and two-seater desks) due to problems in central procurement in the early years of the Project and budgetary shortfalls in some project years. The shift to division-level procurement and eventually to School-Based Procurement helped TEEP accelerate the delivery of school furniture.

Category Target Delivered %

School Furniture 547,397 507,157 93% TX and IMs 10,164,625 17,596,658 173% Kits 67,131 75,721 113% Other Goods 15,163 16,222 107%

Take note in the next table that the School-Based Procurement of Furniture accounted for 163,380 units, or 32% of school furniture delivered to TEEP elementary schools. Under the SBPF, the school and the community take charge of contracting local furniture makers and procuring the materials needed in the making of the school furniture.

Category CPISU DPISU School School Furniture 301,691 55,317 - SBPF 163,380TX & IMs 17,596,652 Kits 67,350 8,371 Other Goods 9,417 6,805

50

iii. INSET

• 62,251 teachers, school heads and district supervisors underwent various

trainings in the core subjects under the TEEP.

• A total of 217,597 training hours were spent on content and pedagogy.

• Trainings were localized and designed to address the least-learned skills of students.

Effects of INSET 1 on Student Performance

There was a significant increase in the performance of TEEP schools in the three subject areas in the 2005 National Achievement Test (NAT) as shown in the graph below.

Math and Science Mentoring Program External institutions were tapped for some of the Project's in-service training. The University of the Philippines-National Institute for Science and Math Education (UP-NISMED) conducted a summer intensive training in Science and Math teaching for 1,143 elementary Science and Math teachers and instructional leaders (ILs) from the 23 TEEP divisions. To reinforce mastery learning, UP-NISMED held a mentoring program for the trained teachers and ILs in 10 divisions. Each division was visited three times for one week each time. The mentoring program entered its last phase in

51

2006. Mentors from UP-NISMED and observers from Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE) and the TEEP central office went to 15 schools nationwide to mentor 15 Science teachers and 13 Math teachers on all aspects of teaching from lesson planning to actual classroom instruction and management.

INSET 2

• The focus on INSET 2 was on capacity building of personnel in non-teaching

areas such as civil works, procurement, student assessment, fund management, monitoring and evaluation, advocacy and school-based management.

• The Effective Instructional Leadership and Educational Resource Management Training (E-FILERMAT) was in essence SBM training. Aimed to enhance the knowledge, attitudes and skills of principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge in effective instructional leadership and administrative management at the school level, a total of 1,072 principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge (13% of all school heads in the TEEP divisions) underwent E-FILERMAT.

iv. School Improvement and Innovation Facility

1. Supply Side Divisional Window

It aimed to reduce drop-outs and improve learning outcomes by giving grants to projects which were approved based on the eligibility criteria set by the Division Appraisal Committee (DAC). As of September 30, 2006: · 3,069 projects have been implemented (136% of targeted 2,261 grants); · Of this number, 2,990 (132% of targeted) were completed. · All the school-based projects had a total cost of PhP231.59 M. · The SIIF Supply Side was implemented in 2,583 schools in 434 school

districts and benefited 507,915 students. · About 94% of the funds came from the Project while 6% was shouldered by

the communities. Popular interventions tried in SIIF are the following: · Remedial reading and instruction classes · Tryout of progressive learning approaches or strategies · Enhanced teaching devices and instructional materials · Improved learning environment through the setting up of learning resource

centers, use of TV, computers and audio-visual equipment in classes · Highly specific interventions such as pre-school summer classes, educational

52

tours, income-generating projects to raise funds for school supplies.

SIIF projects maintained its focus on the marginalized and deprived, disadvantaged and underserved. Plans were implemented as envisioned by the schools and their stakeholders and in response to their unique problems. In many cases, the SIIF projects which were considered best practices were able to generate the broad-based support and active participation of local stakeholders.

2. National Window Supply-Side Projects

This window addressed the reform or mainstream programs of regional or national application. It derived ideas from policy researches or directly from central, regional and divisional offices. The following projects were implemented under this facility:

• Project Q Learn - Bureau of Elementary Education The Project developed multi-media self-learning packages - print (8,672 sets), audio and video materials (800 copies). These were utilized during School Learning Action Cell (SLAC) sessions to upgrade teaching competencies. The materials were distributed to all TEEP provinces. Likewise, 680 school heads were trained on the utilization of these learning packages. The project has been completed.

• Field Test, Validation and Refinement of Reading Portfolio Assessment Processes and Materials - Division of Apayao Terminal report submitted to CPISU; program cascaded in all districts in the division.

• Comprehensive Teacher Professional Development Program (COMTEACH)

- BEE Validation of competency standards for elementary teachers was done. COMTECH was an assessment-based training system designed to direct the overall training policies of DepED towards a more focused merit-based performance appraisal of all public elementary school teachers. The project is due for completion in December 2006.

• Institutional Capacity Building Program for Schools First Initiative (ICD-SFI)

- Office of Planning Service Computers were procured and distributed to the planning officers of 139 non-TEEP divisions in 13 regions in support of the Basic Education Information System (BEIS) of the Department. Central, regional and division key personnel were trained on sector monitoring and strategic planning. The

53

project is already completed.

• Enhancing the Performance of Grade 1 Pupils Though the First Language Component - Cordillera Administrative Region Purchase, printing of books, reading materials for distribution to schools havebeen done. The materials are continually used and the program is sustained in schools where Ilocano is the first language of the children and the teachers.

• Teacher Induction Program for Beginning Teachers - Teacher Education

Council Modules were developed; bidding for the printing of materials was done. Benchmarking/study tour in Singapore and Malaysia on teacher education and induction was also done. This project supported the development, production and distribution of self-instructional packages that new teachers may use at their own pace with the support of 480 school administrators and facilitators as mentors. The project has been completed.

• Materials Development in Support of the Standard Curriculum for the Madrasah Education - Office of the Undersecretary for Muslim Affairs JBIC cleared direct contracting with INNOTECH; contract signed. Print and non-print support teaching and learning materials in five subject areas from Grades 1 to 6 were developed. Capacity building was built into the project. To date, 1,000 teachers attended the 23-day Pre-Service Training on Language Enhancement and Pedagogy of Azatids (Muslim Teachers). A total of 560,000 copies of Grade 1 textbooks (Arabic Language Islamic Values) and 10,000 copies of the curriculum framework were developed and distributed to 17 regions nationwide. The project is already completed.

3. Demand Side Projects

The SIIF Demand-Side Window has two subcomponents:

a. School-based Project Funds which sponsored student stipends, community vouchers, feeding programs and water sanitation projects for the school;

b. the ACTF, a funding mechanism designed by the TEEP to enable schools and communities to have continuing funding that would sustain direct aid to the poorest pupils, in the form of student stipends, community vouchers, feeding programs among others. Under ACTF, each beneficiary school-community partnership (SCP) applied for and was usually awarded the maximum amount of PhP100,000 by the TEEP as seed money to start an ACTF. The SCP was expected to raise the cash counterpart, equivalent to 10% of the seed money. The seed money with the community counterpart is deposited in the bank for as long as the school exists, and only the annual interest is used to assist the

54

beneficiaries. The SCP is registered as a non-profit, non-government foundation with the SEC, with representatives from the school, community, LGU and the DepEd division office sitting as members of the foundation board.

School-based Projects

As of August 15, 2006 –

· PhP44 million were released and used by 456 schools to fund 275 projects that provided direct aid to 58,872 indigent pupils;

· 10% of the projects' costs were shouldered by the communities; · Divisions reported significant improvements in the schools' participation an

completion rates, decreases in drop-out rates and improved school performance of student-beneficiaries.

Adopt-A-Child Trust Fund

· 633 schools and 232 school districts in 13 divisions (Apayao, Aurora, Benguet, Biliran, Cotabato, Guimaras, Ifugao, Leyte, Mountain Province, Negros Oriental, Romblon, Surigao del Sur and Zamboanga Sibugay), availed of the SIIF DSF seed fund from the TEEP totaling PhP48.9 million and established their ACTFs to be able to provide student stipends to poor pupils.

· Community counterparts totaled PhP4.89 million. Common school-based demand-side interventions are:

· Provision of school supplies, uniforms, shoes for the poorest students · Eyeglasses for children with weak eyesight · Feeding Program

v. Student Assessment

The TEEP's Student Assessment component endeavored to promote data-driven decision making in schools. It provided trainings to improve the technical know-how of school heads and teachers in using testing instruments as tools in tracking the progress of students, in using the evaluation results as guide in teaching and teacher training and in gathering data from assessment as basis for school improvement planning. The component strived to improve the appreciation of school heads and teachers for traditional and non-traditional assessment methods. Relative to this, 40 DepED personnel from all the TEEP divisions, the Bureau of Elementary Education and the National Education Testing and Research Center underwent an eight-week training program on assessment in Melbourne, Australia from 1999 to 2000. The training was conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) under a subcontract with INTEM Consulting. The Filipino trainees came up with Formative

55

tests (FTs) and Associated Teaching Activities (ATAs) in subject areas like English (Reading, Writing, Speaking, and Listening), Mathematics, Science, Filipino (Pagbasa, Pagsulat, Pakikinig, Pagsasalita) and HEKASI. As continuing support for teachers in improving their assessment tools, TEEP provided them with Student Assessment (STSA) packages. These are lesson exemplars integrating the FTs, ATAs and Teacher's Manuals. Master teachers from the TEEP provinces were trained on the appropriate use of these materials. The trained master teachers from each division became the core trainers of other teachers in their respective divisions.

vi. Services for Special and Disadvantaged Schools Based on Policy Researches

Various programs designed to support schools' efforts to serve the most marginalized groups in the TEEP provinces have seen substantial progress:

1. Trainings for multigrade teachers are sustained by the divisions and are among

the best trainings designed by them during TEEP implementation; 2. Compilation of learning packages for the Culture-Sensitive Curriculum for

Indigenous Peoples underwent final round of revisions and are among the TEEP materials printed and distributed to TEEP and non-TEEP; and

3. TEEP divisions report expansion of Special Education Programs and services for fast and slow learners, visual and hearing-impaired children and children with mental retardation.

vii. Roll-out of School-Based Management in TEEP schools

· 8,181 SBM pilot schools or 95% of 8,613 TEEP schools have approved School

Improvement Plans and Annual Implementation Plans; and, · 7,278 or 84% of all TEEP schools have received their School Based

Management Fund grants. · Originally, TEEP was targeting to provide SBMF cash grants to only 75% of all

TEEP schools. With the provision of the SBMF to 7,278 schools, the target was exceeded.

· The remaining 1,335 TEEP schools that did not get SBMF successfully generated and mobilized funds from other sources like the Parents, Teachers and Community Association, Special Education Fund of the LGUs, donation from non-government organizations and the DepED Maintenance, Operations and Other Expenses (MOOE).

b. Qualitative Accomplishments

The TEEP lowers the curtain on its nine-year education experiment with solid gains in levels of students' academic achievement. However, results show that the 23 beneficiary schools divisions should work harder to increase gains in learning outcomes and keep up

56

initiatives to improve participation rates and further increase completion rates.

i. Improvement in Learning Outcomes

National Sample-Based Assessment (NSBA). In the final NSBA of the TEEP in 2005, the overall MPS of the 23 TEEP provinces improved from 39.19% in 1999 to 45.84% in 2005. Broken down by grade level tested and by subject area, the table below shows that with the exception of Grade 4 Math, all grade levels tested in every subject area, fell within the targeted range of 40% to 75%.

1999 2001 2003 2005 Subject Area/

Grade Level MPS SDs MPS SDs MPS SDs MPS SDs Mathematics Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Total

36.83 5.71 34.33 6.12 36.84 3.99 35.93 5.52

37.42 7.06 33.38 4.30 36.39 3.99 35.73 4.33

42.72 3.10 37.02 3.74 38.82 3.83 39.56 3.41

44.75 5.75 36.94 5.72 43.57 7.62 41.74 6.15

Science Grade 4 Grade 6 Total

34.49 5.44 40.70 6.79 37.07 5.58

37.19 5.18 41.34 4.85 39.26 4.87

39.03 4.19 41.84 4.24 40.40 4.10

45.04 6.70 46.25 6.35 45.63 6.38

English Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Total

42.64 7.80 37.96 8.25 40.73 8.32 40.45 7.72

42.15 7.52 39.22 7.24 42.62 6.82 41.33 6.65

47.38 4.39 40.98 5.64 42.51 5.74 43.68 5.09

43.53 4.81 40.48 7.14 49.56 6.67 44.45 6.09

Filipino Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Total

40.95 7.71 38.63 6.78 53.41 10.81 43.31 6.91

41.89 7.87 39.43 6.18 50.31 6.43 43.86 6.35

50.18 4.72 41.58 3.90 49.31 5.10 47.01 4.37

51.14 5.43 48.33 5.49 54.48 5.52 51.57 5.30

Across Subjects Totals Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 6 Total

40.14 6.88 36.35 5.96 42.92 7.35 39.19 6.11

40.49 7.24 37.31 5.24 42.67 4.99 40.04 5.20

46.76 3.90 39.65 4.10 43.12 4.38 42.66 3.99

46.47 5.11 42.70 6.03 48.47 6.31 45.77 5.80

The 2005 National Achievement Test. The next table shows the Z-test results of the TEEP schools' performance vis-à-vis the national mean for the NAT in Grade 6 in 2005. All the MPS of the TEEP sample in the five learning areas and in the overall test are higher than the NAT national means. The biggest difference is registered in Science and Mathematics. Moreover, all differences, except for the Filipino area, are found to be statistically significant.

57

TEEP NAT National Mean Subtest

MPS SD MPS SD

Mean Diff

Significance Level

Mathematics 62.81 8.80 59.10 9.68 3.71 p< 0.01 Science 57.03 6.99 54.12 7.38 2.91 p< 0.01 English 61.90 7.56 59.15 7.86 2.75 p< 0.01 Filipino 62.50 7.45 61.75 7.17 0.75 N.S. HEKASI (Soc. Studies) 61.07 7.96 59.55 8.21 1.52 p< 0.05

Total Test 61.06 7.67 58.73 7.91 2.33 P<0.01 ii. Enrolment, Participation and Completion Rates

Enrolment Rate: All in all, students' enrolment in TEEP provinces grew from 1,763,024 in SY 1998-1999 to 1,778,912 in SY 2004-2005. From year to year, enrolment grew, except in school years 2000-01 and 2004-05, when decreases were recorded. The average increase from SY 1998-1999 to SY 2004-05 was 0.15%. Participation Rate: The biggest challenge for TEEP provinces remains the participation rate. The participation rate in the project provinces steadily declined from 83.29% in SY 2002-03, to 81.34% in SY 2003-04, to 79.37% in SY 2004-05 (although the last was higher than the national rate of 76.06%). The decline was a reflection of a national trend. The population data were based on the 2000 census. The population was projected to increase by 2% but there was minimal increase in enrolment. Completion Rate: The picture was better for the TEEP provinces, when it came to the completion rate. The rate steadily grew from 60.17% in SY 2002-03; to 60.74% in SY 2003-04; and 61.43% in SY 2004-05. TEEP provinces were not able to exceed the national completion rate but it narrowed the gap from 4.64 percentage points in SY 2002-03 to 1.83 percentage points in SY 2004-05.

Best Practices

Having been revolutionary in approach and strategy, TEEP adopted many best practices that support decentralization, promote accountability, transparency and quality, and push the drive for results-oriented methods, mechanisms and processes.

a. Consultative and participatory planning and implementation at all levels via the School

Improvement Plans and Annual Implementation Plans, the writing and implementation of the Division Education Development Plans; the Work and Financial Planning conferences of the 23 Project provinces, the TEEP midterm financial review, quarterly and year-end financial review; and the Project's consultative conferences.

58

b. Accountability and data-driven decision making at all levels demonstrated by the consistent tracking and analysis of mean percentage scores in standard assessments and the presentation of results to communities; the installation of tracking boards showing the school's enrolment, participation, completion rates as well as mean percentage scores in the core subjects; the presentation of the School's Report Card to stakeholders; the use of teacher and school head performance evaluation instruments; and the comprehensive School Profiling linked with the DepED Basic Education Information System at the national level.

c. Resource allocation based on equity and performance as exemplified by the TEEP

divisions' formula in allocating School-Based Management Funds favoring the depressed, disadvantaged and underserved schools; the drilling down of the divisions' regular MOOE to the management of school heads; and the tracking of the divisions' performance in meeting TEEP targets as basis in the allocation of additional targets and funds.

d. Strategy identification based on needs and objectives as required in the implementation

of division, district-based and school-based In-Service Training for teachers, the selection of class instruction techniques and methods, curriculum implementation and modifications, school innovations, student assessment and school advocacy.

e. New mechanisms that encourage quality, participation by more contractors,

transparency, accountability and cost efficiency initiated by the Principal-Led School Building Program; the Summer Repair Program; the Total Quality Assurance Program quarterly evaluation of newly constructed buildings; the School-based Procurement of Furniture; full orientation of suppliers on inspection, delivery and acceptance procedures; "No inspection, no acceptance" and the Reject and Replace policy in procurement; and involvement of stakeholders in procurement processes.

f. Support systems worked out through integrated team monitoring by the divisions of their

schools; the District Monitoring and Evaluation Committee for the implementation and review of the School Improvement Plan and Annual Implementation Plan; Division Appraisal Committees to assess newly drafted SIPs and proposals for school innovations; Division Resource Teams or core of trainers for in-service training of teachers; mentoring system of school heads and teachers tapping the master teachers as coaches; the clustering of schools for sharing of resources, School-Based Management Fund processing and liquidation.

g. Rewards, incentives and recognition exemplified by the divisions' recognition of top

performing schools, school heads, teachers and stakeholders in yearly awarding ceremonies, in the grant of additional material support for top performing schools.

Recommendations to DepED for Sustainability a. Institutionalize School-based Management and its components, particularly the drilling

down of portions of the DepED division's MOOE to schools to fund the SIP and AIP. Distribution of school shares from the MOOE should be based on the type of school

59

(large/small monograde, incomplete, multigrade etc) and should favor the depressed, disadvantaged and underserved schools.

b. Institutionalize the division support systems developed by TEEP divisions, such as mechanisms to monitor, evaluate and provide technical assistance to teachers and school managers in improving classroom instruction and school effectiveness.

c. Strengthen advocacy and networking for stakeholders' participation in school improvement planning and implementation through the organization of school governing councils.

d. Establish a National Assessment Framework (NAF) that will serve as the blueprint of assessment practices at different levels of the education system.

e. Consider integrating features of the National Sample-Based Assessment in the proposed NAF. NSBA served as a good basis to assess learning achievement as it was based on the Philippine Elementary Learning Competency (PELC) and the Restructured Basic Education Curriculum.

f. Institutionalize the Effective Instructional Leadership and Resource Management Training program for school heads nationwide as a form of preparation for the implementation of school-based management.

g. Maintain the Division Resource Team as a support structure that will ensure quality and relevance in the implementation of in-service training for teachers and DepED personnel at all levels.

h. Put in place a monitoring and technical assistance system to track the application of training gains in the classroom and ensure the continuing and appropriate use of training manuals, session guides, INSET packages, modules, video tapes and other training materials developed under TEEP.

i. Support and promote the use of assessment data from school and division tests as basis for training designs and school improvement planning.

j. Continue partnerships with teacher training institutions, NGOs, LGUs and other service providers in conducting in-service trainings.

k. Allocate DepED regular funds for school improvement and innovation projects, both supply-side and demand-side projects.

l. Institutionalize effective school innovations and ensure information dissemination on successful projects through the Research and Innovation Policy Evaluation Secretariat (RIPES).

m. Support modification of curriculum and development of instructional materials based on students' needs.

n. Support and encourage the establishment of learning resource centers and libraries in all remote schools.

o. Consider using TEEP monitoring tools in conducting quarterly or semi-annual evaluation

60

of pupils' performance and teacher and school head effectiveness. Use the information gathered in making a priority list of schools that need technical assistance and regular supervisory visits.

p. Include the Key Performance Indicators of learning achievement (non-readers/non-numerates, mean percentage scores, teacher and school head effectiveness assessment) in the monitoring system of the DepED.

q. Ensure regular updating of the Education Management Information System (E-MIS) at all levels.

r. Institutionalize the use of the School Report Card to inform stakeholders about school performance and progress in SIP implementation.

s. Adopt the policy of performance contracts linking teacher performance evaluation with pupil achievement.

t. Introduce the School MIS to non-TEEP schools.

u. The DepEd's Physical Facilities Services and Engineering Division(PFSED) and the Task Force Engineering Assessment and Monitoring Team (TFEAM) can review the three manuals developed under the Principal-Led School Building for the setting of common guidelines for all schools nationwide.

v. PFSED and TFEAM can review and finalize existing TEEP school building designs and customization to different geographical conditions as standards to be adopted by all agencies or NGOs involved in school building construction.

w. The DepED can strengthen the Time, Cost, Quality Assurance Program through the creation of the Physical Facilities unit in each division that will evaluate the quality of school buildings constructed and conduct an inventory of needs for classroom construction and repair.

x. Adopt TEEP systems, processes and procedures in the delivery, inspection and acceptance of goods and services in all schools divisions.

y. Designate procurement officer at the division level to handle procurement activities.

z. Adopt the following: a) organization of the division procurement inspectorate teams; b) division-level procurement of goods and services available in the province at lower costs; c) School-based Procurement of Furniture in areas where it could be most beneficial, such as far-flung communities with capability to supply furniture.

aa. Institutionalize decentralization of fund management: from the DBM to divisions down to schools.

bb. Provide training to project management and staff on financial management in foreign assisted projects.

cc. Train all school heads on fund management.

dd. Promote communication and advocacy planning in all schools divisions and public schools.

61

ee. Sustain efforts to surface and share information on school's best practices through expos, recognition day, exhibits, intensive monitoring and the creation of a best practices database.

ff. Create a directory of NGOs, institutions, agencies or LGUs that provide aids, grants, donations or programs for school improvement and make the list available to schools.

gg. Create, maintain help desks and feed back centers at the division and district levels.

hh. Preserve the original mandate and of the RIPES personnel.

Comments on Draft ICR Given by Dr. Yolanda Quijano, Asst. Director, Bureau of Elementary Education, Department of Education and Deputy Project Manager, TEEP CPISU

Below are our specific comments:

A. We agree with the following:

1. appropriateness of the analysis and conclusions of the Bank's ICR;

2. discussions on the outcomes and results of the Project

3. Roles of the Bank Quality supervision missions were conducted regularly that helped the Management address critical issues and concerns. The team that took charge of TEEP provided an open and proactive environment necessary for decentralization. Furthermore, when implementation issues arose at any time, communication lines were open and immediate responses were provided.

1. Lessons Learned

TEEP succeeded in many areas due to legal and policy cover to adopt "new ways" of doing things. The new ways implemented by the Project promoted efficiency of services and high quality inputs resulting in client satisfaction; they were inclusive, participatory, consultative and transparent thereby boosting the interest and morale of stakeholders; and were results-oriented and involved strict process of accountability The areas include decentralization to all levels, school-based management (student assessment, in-service training, school improvement and innovation facility, curriculum, instructional materials and textbooks, principal-led school building program, school-based procurement of furniture), data management, utilization and evaluation, information, education and community involvement, and decentralized fund management.

62

leaders/managers or personnel who were in the best position to ensure sustainability of projects were suddenly shuffled to new positions and the second bench was not ready to take over; communication gaps begot misunderstanding over guidelines and procedures; and portions of the TEEP working force could not efficiently absorb lessons from the trainings attended.

63

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Comments are included unedited. a. Overall comments of JBIC The findings in the ICR present a fair assessment of the performance of the TEEP and they generally coincide with the results of the completion study commissioned by JBIC. The relationship between World Bank and JBIC was focused on the mutual acknowledgement of the development challenges underlying TEEP. As such, there was a strong motivation to strengthen the partnership and create an environment conducive to close and meaningful dialogues on implementation issues/bottlenecks and policy concerns, alongside the government partners. Based on this experience, JBIC welcomes future collaboration with World Bank with the end view of deepening the gains learned from TEEP and which are now factored into the GOP’s BESRA. b. Executive Summary of JBIC Completion Study1 1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

1.1 TEEP started in 1998 as a public investment program of the Government of the Philippines (GoP), World Bank (WB) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). It was aimed to address three major issues:

• the deteriorating quality of basic education; • inequitable access to elementary education due to social selectivity; and • difficulties or lost opportunities due to overly centralized management.

1.2 Project management was organized along components and sub-components as shown below.

Central direction came from a Central Project Implementation Support Unit (CPISU) headed by a Deputy Project Manager with assistance from the Team Leader of the consultants. CPISU was composed of organic personnel, consultants and a number of project-hired staff. Project operations at the division level were managed by a Division Program Implementation Support Unit (DPISU), headed by the superintendent, with some assistance from a TEEP Division Adviser (TDA) and a few project-hired staff, notably engineers and accounting staff. Table ES-1: Project Components And Sub-Components

Civil Works Education Development Finance and Administration School Building Program New Construction

Student Assessment Curriculum, Instructional Materials and Textbooks

Accounting, Budget and Finance

Procurement

1 This is the first part of the Final Report of the JBIC Study Team for the Review of TEEP. The report comes in three separately bound parts: 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 2. INTEGRATED MAIN REPORT and 3. APPENDICES.

64

Repair Division Offices

(CIMTEX) In-Service Training (INSET) School Improvement and Innovation Facility (SIIF)

Policy Research and Strategic Planning (PRSP)

School-Based Management (SBM)

Information, Education, Communication and Advocacy (IECA)

Monitoring and Evaluation and Management Information System (MIS)

Source: TEEP. Draft Project Completion Report (as presented on 28 July 2006), Island Cove, Binakayan, Cavite

1.3 In pesos, the total budget for TEEP was P12.7B – P 4.3B (34%, World Bank Loan), P4.5B (35%, JBIC loan) and P3.8B (30%, GOP). Of this amount, P7.1B (56%) was allocated for civil works, i.e. school buildings and division offices.

Table ES-2: TEEP Total Budget By Component And By Source (January 1998 To June 30 2006 In Million Pesos)

COMPONENTS/ CATEGORIES WB JBIC GOP TOTAL % of Total

Allocation Civil Works 2,080 2,911 2,155 7,146 56.2% Goods 825 111 303 1,239 9.7% Tx and IM 907 47 954 7.5% Training 382 274 656 5.2% SIIF Grant 84 388 51 523 4.1% Consulting Services 17 1,099 1,115 8.8% SBM Funds 78 47 125 1.0% Administrative cost 968 968 7.6% Total 4,373 4,508 3,845 12,726 100.0% % of Total Allocations 34.4% 35.4% 30.2% 100.0%

Source: TEEP Draft Project Completion Report (CD form), July 28 2006.

Figure ES-1: Percent Distribution Of TEEP Budget To Project Components

56%10%

8%

5%

4%

9%

1%

8%Civil WorksGoodsTextbooks/IMTrainingSIIF GrantConsulting ServicesSBM FundsAdministrative Cost

65

AMOUNT ALLOCATED VERSUS AMOUNT DISBURSED IN MILLION PESOS1 = WORLD BANK, 2 = JBIC

4,373 4,5084,219 4,288

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000

1 2

ALLOCATEDDISBURSED

1.4 Between January 1998 and June 30 2006, TEEP disbursed P11.5B2 (or 90.6 % of the P12.7 B project allotment).

1.5 As a loan-funded project, TEEP operated under 3 types of budget ceilings: a dollar ceiling,

a yen ceiling and a peso ceiling. By decision of the Philippine Investment Coordinating Council (ICC), the peso ceiling ended up as the most restrictive, thus precluding a 100% loan drawdown from either bank. Computed in pesos, TEEP drew down an amazing 96.5% ( = P 4,219,350,000/ P 4,372,608,000) from the World Bank loan and 95.1% ( = P 4,287,869,000/ P 4,508,346,000) from the JBIC loan.

Figure ES-2: Amounts Allocated Versus Amounts Disbursed (In Million Pesos) Computed in dollars for World Bank and in yen for JBIC, TEEP drew down 96.1% ( = $ 80,134,000/ $83,405,000) on the World Bank loan and a lower 84.1% ( = Y 9,348,631,000/ Y 11,122,000,000) from the JBIC loan. It turned out the peso ceiling was more restrictive on the yen.

Table ES-3 : TEEP Total Disbursements By Component And By Source Jan 1998 To June 30 2006, In Million Pesos.

WB JBIC GOP TOTAL Civil Works 1,992 2,831 1,496 6,319 54.9% Goods 789 111 234 1,135 9.9% Tx and IM 904 23 927 8.1% Training 382 258 640 5.6%

2 TEEP Draft Project Completion Report presented in the Workshop on the Project Completion Report. Island Cove, Binakayan, Cavite, 24-29 July 2006.

66

SIIF Grant 72 248 35 354 3.1% Consulting Services 10 1,098 1,108 9.6% SBM Funds 71 45 116 1.0% Administrative cost 906 906 7.9% 4,219 4,288 2,997 11,504 100.0% 36.7% 37.3% 26.1% 100.0% Source: TEEP Draft Project Completion Report ( CD, not printout) , July 28 2006.

2.0 PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES:

2.1 There are 3 Ways to Look at TEEP • TEEP was an “education reform” project designed to improve access and quality of

education and reduce inequities in the system • TEEP was a “delivery system” to provide civil works, other material inputs, and training

to 23 divisions, 8,6003 schools, 54,000 teachers and about 1.74 million pupils subject to time, cost and quality constraints..

• TEEP was a human resource and management development project. TEEP succeeded in all three ways.

2.2 TEEP was the Biggest Social Laboratory for Education Reform in the History of DepEd. It succeeded.

It targeted the poorest provinces in 1997, the so-called Social Reform Agenda (SRA) provinces. The ARMM provinces would have been part of TEEP too but peace and order considerations ruled out their inclusion at the time. There were originally only 22 provinces in the first 2 years but this eventually became 23 when Zamboanga del Sur was split into Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga Sibugay.

2.3 TEEP Improved Access to Elementary Education

• A 3.5% increase in participation rates from 92.5 % in 1999 to 96.0% in 2002. This finding is based on the 1999 and 2002 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey5 (or APIS), not on DepEd-reported data. The increase is better than the 1.9% improvement in non-TEEP non-ARMM provinces from 95.3% to 97.2%.

• Given the same income level and other family characteristics, a child from a TEEP division was 13% more likely to be enrolled than a child in a non-TEEP non-ARMM division. This is based on logistic regression using APIS data.

3 This is a rounded approximate number. In the course of the review, the total number of schools (whether in TEEP only or for the Philippines as a whole) never got to be fixed. The most reliable figure should be the number supported by the master list of schools but even then, there are many lists which do not tally with each other. Because of the inconsistent use of ID numbers and recording of school annexes, it is not easy to pinpoint where two lists differ. 4 The “total enrolment” (whether in TEEP or the Philippines as a whole) was also a moving target even when derived from databases which show school-by-school data. For most computations, the Review used the approximate figure of 1.7M for the total enrolment in TEEP. 5 The APIS is conducted by the National Statistics Office every other year and involves a random sample of about 40,000 households all over the country.

67

2.4 More TEEP Schools Achieve “Zero Non-Reader” Goal

TEEP has explicit zero non-reader and zero non-numerate goals in Grades 1-3. The percentage of TEEP schools who have achieved this goal has been increasing, as shown in the chart below.

Figure ES-3: Percent Of TEEP Schools With Zero Non-Readers And Zero Non-Numerates, SY 2004-05 Versus SY 2005-06

18%

22% 23%

26%

20%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

ENGLISH FILIPINO NON-NUMERATE

% OF TEEP SCHOOLS WITH ZERO NON-READERS and NON-NUMERATES

2004-052005-06

Source: TEEP Draft PCR Report.

2.5 TEEP Improved Learning Achievement Using Many Measures. Two sets of national assessment bear out the achievement: • The National Sample-based Assessment (NSBA), administered by TEEP to a sample

of 701 of its schools and a sample of 166 schools in non-TEEP provinces. • The National Achievement Test (NAT), administered to all (or almost all) students at

a specific grade level.

2.5.1 The NSBA 2005 results show that the TEEP schools scored significantly higher, in all grade levels, than the non-TEEP schools6. (See Figure ES-4 below) Unfortunately, the non-TEEP sample was too small to make more detailed comparisons between TEEP and subgroups of non-TEEP schools.

6 In the NSBA 2000-01, there was no significant difference between the performance of TEEP and non-TEEP schools. By 2004-05, as measured by the NSBA, the TEEP schools were outperforming the non-TEEP.

68

Figure ES-4: 2005 NSBA MPS by subject, TEEP versus Non-TEEP.

Source: TEEP Student Assessment, 2005.

2.5.2 Admittedly NAT7 is not a perfect instrument but it has been the only national standard test over the past 8 years. The Review used NAT as the measure of achievement, in particular the following: 1. The Top Ten Divisions of the country based on NAT 2004-05. 2. The “Top 1% Schools” of the country based on NAT 2004-05. 3. % of schools which crossed mastery level (an MPS of 75) in 2004-05. 4. % of schools which reached “near-mastery” level (an MPS of 60) in 2004-05 5. Mean percentage scores (MPS) in 2004-05. See Figure E-5. 6. Average rank8 of the schools in the division in 2004-05.

7 There were no national achievement tests in 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02. NSBA was given in 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05. NAT was administered in 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 but the 2005-06 results were not available at the time of this Review. 8 Based on the average MPS of its pupils, each school is ranked in the country. With about 34,000 schools in the NAT, the highest-scoring school was given rank 34,000 and the lowest-scoring was given rank 1. If a school ranked 10,000 in NAT 2002-03 goes up to rank 12,000 in NAT 2004-05, we say that the school improved by 2,000 schools. The rank of the division is the average rank of its schools. The Review Team had to resort to the analysis of school and division ranks and improvement in rank – instead of the usual

44.441.7

45.4

51.3

45.8

38.035.1

38.7

46.9

39.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

English Math Science Filipino TOTAL TEST

Series1Series2

69

7. Improvement in rank between 2002-03 and 2004-05. See Figure E-6.

By all these measures, the TEEP schools and divisions performed very well. Table ES-4: National Student Assessment Examinations Administered Between 1997-98 And 2004-05.

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

NEAT

NSBA NSBA NSBA

NAT Grade 4

NAT Grade 5

NAT Grade 6

• In NAT 2002-03, there was no TEEP province among the Top Ten divisions. In NAT

2003-04, two TEEP divisions made it: Leyte and Surigao del Sur. In NAT 2004-05, three TEEP provinces made it: Biliran, Eastern Samar and Southern Leyte. Recall that TEEP was in only 23 out of 188 school divisions of the Philippines.

• Among the Top 1% schools ( approximately the Top 300 schools of the country) in NAT 2004-05: 26% of them were from TEEP – although the proportionate share in school population of TEEP is only 21%.

2.6 The Review Compared TEEP with Other Groups of Poor Provinces

The 23 provinces were picked for TEEP because they were poorest at the time the project started. Thus, it was deemed appropriate by the Review Team to compare TEEP with other provinces grouped according to poverty9. Based on four (4) poverty indices, six groups of provinces emerged as shown below.

Table ES-5: Groups Of Poor And Non-Poor Provinces As Classified Using 4 Poverty Indices

NAME OF PROVINCE GROUP OR DIVISION CLUSTER

GENERAL DESCRIPTION NO. OF PROVINCES

ARMM Clearly poor 7 AKLAN+ Clearly poor 8 CAGAYAN+ Poor 21 ILOILO+ Less poor 8 PAMPANGA+ (includes all cities outside NCR)

Non-poor 99

NCR Non-poor 14 Source: BEIS++

MPS and improvement in MPS -- because the NAT was not given to the same grade level in the three years. 9 Please see Appendix F of the Main Integrated Report of this Review for the classification of provinces based on 4 poverty indices. The complete listing of provinces under each group is in the same appendix.

70

2.7 TEEP Improved Pupil Achievement --- Better than the Other Poor Provinces, as Good as the Non-Poor.

Figure ES-5: By Province Group, Overall NAT MPS In 2004-05.

Source: BEIS++10

Figure ES-5 shows that TEEP elementary leader schools ( with MPS 64.6%) scored higher than even non-poor Pampanga+ ( with MPS 60.4%) and NCR (60.5%). The other TEEP schools, i.e. the non-ELS, scored 59.4%. The combined TEEP average is 59.6%, slightly lower than the non-poor provinces. • A higher percentage of TEEP schools crossed the near-mastery level (60% MPS) in NAT

2004-05 than all schools – more than the poor provinces, more than even the non-poor. The lead of TEEP is even more dramatic in Math.

• A higher percentage of TEEP schools crossed the mastery level ( 75% MPS) in NAT 2004-05 than all schools – more than the poor provinces, as much as the non-poor. The lead of TEEP is even more dramatic in Math as can be seen below in Figure E-6. In 2004-05, 1/3 of the ELS and ¼ of the other TEEP schools reached NAT mastery level in mathematics.

10 BEIS++ is the name given to the database used by the JBIC Review Team in its statistical analyses. The database combines data from the BEIS, NETRC and from the TEEP project database. While the BEIS itself lists about 36,500 schools, the BEIS contains about 24,500 schools because many schools do not have compete data.

64.659.4

45.1

57.7 55.9 54.760.4 60.5

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

TEEP ELS

TEEP NON-ELSARMM

AKLAN+

CAGAYAN+

ILOILO+

PAMPANGA+NCR

OVERALL NAT MPS 2004-05 BY PROVINCE GROUP

71

Figure ES-6: The Percent Of Schools11 Which Crossed Mastery Level (MPS 75) In MATHEMATICS In The NAT 2004-05.

Source: BEIS++

2.8 By many measures of achievement, it can be seen that TEEP catapulted the 23 provinces to the achievement level12 of non-poor divisions NCR. This is a major feat considering that in 2002-03, the MPS and ranks of the 23 provinces were even lower than Aklan+, Iloilo+ and Cagayan+. Only ARMM ranked lower than the 23 provinces.

2.9 TEEP has been “the equalizer” and it reduced the inequities between the poor and

the non-poor. The interventions of TEEP seem to have wiped out the socio-economic advantage of schools in Pampanga+ and NCR. At the same time, the analysis has incidentally revealed the need for TEEP-type project/s for at least ARMM, Aklan+, and Cagayan+. One can only surmise how these poor provinces might have improved if they had received the same TEEP-type interventions.

TEEP demonstrated it is possible to equalize opportunities in a highly unequal socio-economic structure. This is one of the legacies of TEEP.

11 The graph shows that 33% of the TEEP elementary leader schools (ELS) reached mastery level in the mathematics portion of NAT 2004-05. Among the non-ELS in TEEP, 24% of them reached mastery level. For TEEP as a whole, about 27% reached mastery level – higher than the poor provinces and indeed higher than even the non-poor Pampanga+ and NCR. 12 The achievement levels for the Philippines, including those of non-poor Pampanga+ and NCR, need much improvement. Thus it may not be a cause for much celebration among some people that TEEP reached the achievement levels of said non-poor provinces. But still, TEEP did reduce the inequity between the 23 poorest provinces on the one hand and the non-poor provinces on the other hand.

33%

24%

4%

18%

9%

5%

26%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

TEEP ELS

TEEP NON-ELSARMM

AKLAN+

CAGAYAN+

ILOILO+

PAMPANGA+NCR

% OF SCHOOLS WHICH REACHED 75% MASTERY LEVEL IN NAT 2004-05

72

Figure ES-7: By Province Group, The Improvement In Rank13 Of Schools From NAT 2002-03 To NAT 2004-05

Source: BEIS++

3.0 TEEP WAS AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE “DELIVERY SYSTEM”

Table ES-6a : The Magnitude Of Procurement Under TEEP, Physical Quantities Targeted And Delivered, And Amounts Disbursed By Type.

Category COST

Physical Target (no. of pieces)

Delivered (no. of pieces)

% delivery rate

School Furniture P 386 M 547,397 520,388 95%TX and IMs P 954 M 10,164,625 17,596,658 173%Kits P 591 M 67,131 75,721 113%Other Goods P 233 M 15,163 16,199 107% P 2,164 M

Source: TEEP Draft PCR (July 2006)

13 This chart depicts the improvement in average school rank from the 2002-03 NAT to the 2004-05 NAT. It reveals dramatically that “rich” (i.e. non-poor) schools do better than poor schools. The 23 provinces are also poor/ still poor but with the support of TEEP, the schools in the 23 provinces improved just like the non-poor divisions. • NCR improved its rank and leaped over 2,186 schools (about 9 % of the schools in BEIS++). • The poor provinces ARMM, Aklan+ and Cagayan+ all declined in ranks. Indeed, the rank of ARMM

fell behind by 4,457 schools (about 18% of the schools in BEIS) schools while Aklan+ fell by 1,628 schools (about 6 %).

• In contrast, the TEEP ELS schools leaped in front of 2,846 schools (or 11% of all schools) while the other TEEP schools, i.e. the non-ELS, jumped ahead by 746 schools ( 3% of all schools).

2,846746

-4,457

-1,628-1145

140975

2,186

-6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000

Change in MeanRankings SY02-03 to SY04-05

NCR

Pampanga+

Iloilo+

Cagayan+

Aklan+

ARMM

TEEP non-ELS

TEEP ELS

73

Table ES-6b The Magnitude Of Procurement Under TEEP, Physical Quantities Procured By Level14.

Category CPISU-PROCURED

DPISU-PROCURED

SCHOOL-PROCURED

TOTAL NO. OF PIECES

School Furniture 301,691 55,317 163,380 520,388 TX and IMs 17,596,658 17,596,658 Kits 67,350 8,371 75,721 Other Goods 9,416 6,783 16,199 Source: TEEP Draft PCR (July 2006)

• TEEP disbursed a total of P 6.3B to construct 5,461 new classrooms,15,404 room repairs, 18

new and 5 division office buildings rehabilitations – translating to about P500,000 per classroom, P225,000 per repair and about P13M per new division office.

• Both new rooms and repairs were standard-sized and came complete with amenities (plumbing, electrical, window grills, ceilings, new paint job). The repairs were actually rehabilitations, looked “good as new” and removed any stigma of being second-class compared to brand-new construction. As a brand name in classroom construction and repairs, “TEEP” has earned a reputation for top quality.

• The July 2003 Ateneo/G-watch study revealed it was not fair to directly compare TEEP classrooms with either DPWH construction (because the latter were often left unfinished) or those built by NGOs (because these were sometimes undersized or used inferior materials). The classrooms comparable in quality with TEEP were those donated by JICA or built by SEMP.

• TEEP introduced the principal-led construction mode in mid-2001 and this accelerated delivery: 1,000 classrooms within 6 months and another 1,000 classrooms in the next 6 months.

• The principal-led mode did not disrupt the school head’s administrative and academic workload. In a typical 90-day cycle15 for new construction, the principal spent an average of only 1 hour per day. Legal cover for the innovation was provided by RA 9155. Rule VI Section 6.2 grants “authority, accountability and responsibility” for “administering and managing… physical ..resources of the school.” About 6,000 principals supervised 3,070 new construction and 12,137 repairs -- but no one among them was reported to have committed an anomaly. School heads were supported with training, operation manuals and at least two project engineers per division. Actual payments were made by the division office but all payments needed the assent of the school head.

• With a 40% reduction in per-textbook cost, TEEP overachieved and reached the ideal 1:1 textbook-to-pupil ratio16 for about 1.7M pupils in English, Math, Science and Filipino. The

14 This chart depicts graphically that TEEP procured goods at all 3 levels: central , division -- and schools. 15 The day-to-day schedule for a school head during the 90-day TEEP construction cycle may be found in Section 4 (National School Building Policy) of the main report. 16 Verifying the physical count of textbooks in schools remains a challenge in DepED. While the theoretical textbook:pupil ratio is 1:1 for some divisions, there are still shortages and surpluses in many schools. In recent years DepED has tried book exchange schemes among schools and has enlisted NGOs in

74

procurement of textbooks was transparently honest but so efficient that it took only 12 months (instead of the usual 24-36 months) to consummate the order. With the NGO-supported Textbook Count project, DepED and TEEP were able to verify the count of textbook deliveries at the schools themselves – not at the division offices, not at the district offices.

• TEEP shifted the purchase of classroom furniture from the central office down to the schools themselves, solving many problems in one blow: how to order the right number and types of seats (e.g. left-handed), the use of local lumber while complying with reasonable national quality standards, low prices – and best of all, assurance of timely and verifiable physical delivery to the appropriate classroom.

• The project started correctly by conducting a school mapping exercise in 1999-2000 and obtained credible baseline data “from the ground”. Teams of young engineers were sent to all 8,200 schools.

• Some anomalies were discovered in the SBP and procurement components but these were dealt with immediately. There were 4 cases in SBP (3 irregularities in LGU-led construction and 1 fatally-flawed design of a division office) and a case of ghost deliveries in the procurement of desks. The primary anti-corruption approach of TEEP was transparency and the strict application of 3 sets of procurement rules: Philippines, World Bank and JBIC. When anomalies were discovered, fund releases were withheld and/or the entire component for the division was suspended.

• TEEP was diligent in booking TEEP inputs, once delivered to DepED, as government assets. • The “School Innovation and Improvement Facility (SIIF) delivery system” was

comprehensive and innovative. It had a “division window” which allowed divisions to fund innovation projects in individual schools based on school proposals. It also had a “national window” to fund innovations at the national level. It addressed both the “supply-side” and the “demand side” (i.e. direct aid to students or school-community partnerships).

• One of the most important innovations developed in TEEP was the Adopt-a-Child Trust Fund (ACTF)17. This is an endowment fund (therefore sustainable) maintained by a school-community partnership, not a school and not an LGU either. It earned the approval of both COA and the Securities and Exchange Commmission. It is a very natural venue for resource generation by TEEP schools.

• TEEP attempted and partly succeeded in cultivating the use of data and information at the level of schools and division offices. Its central project database collected school-by-school data on all TEEP inputs18 (except finance). It also developed a custom-made MIS software package for schools.

• The charts below show the rate of annual disbursements over the 8.5-year implementation period. For both JBIC and WB disbursements, the 2-year surge in 2002 and 2003 is very obvious.

verifying physical deliveries in schools. In Section 5 of the main report, the Review recommends that the physical distribution of textbooks be bid separately from printing and manuscript writing. Efficient book printers/ publishers are not necessarily good physical distributors to schools. 17 For details, please see the Main Report, a separate volume of this Final Report. 18 The central TEEP project database is anchored on the master list of schools but finance was tabulated separately. The finance database was organized along divisions and disbursement categories. TEEP did not deliberately track or estimate the monetary value of inputs to individual schools. Because of this, the JBIC review could only impute a universal “implied average TEEP disbursement per school”. To enable a detailed analysis of school funding versus school outcomes, future DepED projects should track the monetary value of inputs to individual schools.

75

Figure ES-8A: Annual Drawdowns From The JBIC Loan, In MILLION YEN.

ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FROM JBIC LOAN

1,4221,497

1,592

2,036

1,538

300

457299

208

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Source: TEEP Draft PCR (July 2006) Figure ES-8B: Annual Drawdowns From The World Bank Loan, In Thousand Dollars.

ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FROM WB LOAN

7,517

4,882

10,782

21,613

4,266

12,863

17,940

21259

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Source: TEEP Draft PCR (July 2006)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

76

3.1 TEEP Delivered Results at An Implied Average Cost of P 6,849 Per Pupil If the total disbursement of P11.5 B is spread over the 8,600 schools in TEEP, the implied average disbursement per school is about P 1.3M over the 8.5-year period. If the P11.5B is spread over the 1.7M total enrolment, the implied average disbursement is only P6,84919 per pupil.

4.0 TEEP WAS THE LARGEST HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN DEPED

• TEEP training reached about 200 persons at the central office, 500 organic and project-hired staff in division offices (including all superintendents, education supervisors and finance officers), all 8,600 school heads and all 54,000 teachers. About 81% of teacher training was initiated by schools themselves.

• TEEP decentralized much of project management to the division offices but provided formal and informal training, operations manuals, and support personnel ( typically one TEEP Division Adviser, 2-10 engineers depending on the size of the division and 2 bookkeepers per division).

• At the central office, from 2001 onwards TEEP was led by consultants which successfully used private sector management processes in the project.

• The project implementation team introduced a Human Resources Council. Terms of reference for all positions in the project, including consultants and TDAs, were reviewed. Expectations were made explicit, targets and deadlines were agreed on, quantitative and qualitative rating systems were used. The Human Resource Council applied a corporate-type carrots and sticks approach instead of the usual government civil service personnel evaluation system.

• At the end of the day, TEEP had effected many changes: It transformed the mindsets of those who participated in the reform experiment; It proved the immense wisdom of trusting school heads and teachers. It awakened and mobilized parents, communities, and local officials to invest

time, energy and resources in their schools’ mission. It instilled the self-belief that they hold a big part of the fate of the schools in their hands, that they are part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

It developed leaders at all levels of the organization and across functions with the capacity to manage change.

5.0 FACTORS WHICH LED TO THE SUCCESS OF TEEP

From January 1998 to December 2000, TEEP started rather slowly. The surge in TEEP accomplishments started after project restructuring in mid-2001 and it came as a confluence of several factors/events: 1. The takeover of a decisive and reform-minded Secretary with political will and the full

political backing of the President and Congress (at least during the 2 years he was in position).

2. The full administrative support of a reform-minded Undersecretary.

19 Based on the draft TEEP PCR as of July 28, 2006, total project disbursements over 8.5 years (January 1998 to June 2006) amounted to P 11,504,368,000. Based on the BEIS 2003-04, there were 1,679,661 pupils in TEEP – thus implying an average of P 6,849 project disbursement per pupil. On a per year basis, this translates to P 806 per pupil.

77

3. The subsequent appointment of a results-oriented consulting team with extensive experience in management and proven success in managing billion-pesos projects, a finance consultant very familiar with both regular government bureaucratic and fiscal autonomy rules, and a visionary and respected education consultant.

4. The appointment of a reform-minded and dynamic Deputy Project Manager from the BEE to serve as the day-to-day leader.

5. The project restructuring in mid-2001 which allowed the project to formally implement the innovations of the new leadership and recommendations of the TEEP Mid-Term Review.

6. The principal-led school building construction mode. Primarily intended to speed up construction, this innovation set the stage for significant changes. In the first place, it did speed up construction: 1,000 classrooms in 6 months and another thousand in the next 6 months alone. It boosted the confidence of school heads and raised their stature in the eyes of the teachers and the community. This in turn energized school-LGU/community partnerships and encouraged their wider involvement in improving school outcomes. All these made it easier to implement school-based management.

7. The unequivocal legal policy cover provided by RA 9155 and its IRR. The law provided the impetus and TEEP provided the resources for decentralization to division offices and eventually to school-based management.

8. The continuity in policy from 2001 to 2006 (in spite of the change of slogan) from “School-based Management” under Secretaries Roco and De Jesus to “Schools First Initiative” under Secretary Abad and OIC Secretary Hidalgo.

9. Within TEEP management, the resolution of an internal debate on the scale of SBM implementation in favor of phased expansion beyond 388 pilot leader schools to all of the 8,600 schools in TEEP.

10. The advocacy and encouragement of the donor/lender banks for a much speedier decentralization of education in TEEP.

11. Building on the achievements of past projects (e.g. PROBE), opportunities (e.g. the BEE/Ateneo Math Teacher Lesson Guides), and active cooperation with other DepED projects (e.g. SEMP). In proposing project structuring in mid-2001, TEEP in effect built on the results of the TEEP Midterm Review and the ADB TA on Decentralization.

All the above contributed to the success of TEEP but it is difficult to single out one factor as the most significant.

5.1 Significant Explanatory Variables from Regression

Regression analysis highlights the significant effects of the following non-cognitive predictors on the change in NAT rankings from 2002-03 to 2004-05. 1. being a fully operational School-Based Management (SBM) school, I.E. belonging to

one of the first two batches of schools that managed SBM funds; 2. having received a School Improvement and Innovation Facility (SIIF) grant that

requires 10% equity from the community; 3. number of new and repaired classrooms per student; 4. number of new textbooks per student;

78

5. teacher training20 ( the percentage of teachers in the division who attended more than five training modules)

6. division (or variance due to the particularities of divisions) and 7. initial MPS or rank of the school.

In the regression, four factors were robust predictors: textbooks per student, classrooms per student, having received an SIIF grant and training. The no. of school furniture was not a significant explanatory variable. It is difficult to declare one factor as more important than another21. The above predictors accounted for 49% of the variance in the improvement or decline in NAT ranking for the period.

5.2 STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY TEEP DURING ITS EVOLUTION

The project evolved over the 8.5-year implementation period. As abstracted by the Review Team, TEEP may be seen to have employed the following strategies: 1. Among the many school divisions in the country, it targeted the poorest provinces. 2. Phased targeting within the project: it focused initially on a subset of schools (about

390 elementary leader schools or ELS) but in phases, it eventually targeted all schools in the division.

3. The focus on equity considerations. Among the many schools within TEEP provinces, it targeted “disadvantaged schools”, i.e. the multigrade and/or incomplete schools (MGIS)22 and those with significant indigenous populations (IP). Indeed TEEP made sure that the ELS already included some disadvantaged schools among them.

4. Provision of a comprehensive package of inputs to schools: classrooms (both repairs and new construction), desks, textbooks, instructional materials, kits and other goods, training for teachers and education managers, grants for school innovation projects, etc.

5. Adoption of school-based management (SBM) as the integrating framework for all the inputs.

6. Substantial decentralization of project management to the division offices and transforming them into enterprise units.

7. Provision of excellent support and technical services: management, consultancy services ( architectural/engineering, logistics, finance, education, data management, communication, etc), and policy studies.

5.3 From a New Set of Realities to A New Set of Possibilities

The 23 provinces are poor and they have the profile to show for it: many of their municipalities are poor ( 5th or 6th class) and many of their schools are disadvantaged (i.e.

20 “Percentage of teachers receiving more than 5 training” was only a proxy variable. The Review would have preferred to use the average no. of hours per teacher per subject and the average cost of training per teacher per subject in each school but these were not available. 21 Apart from the variance in the dependent variable attributed to each one of them, which is relatively low compared to the differences across divisions and the starting MPS or rank, the available measures of these factors are far from ideal. 22 Public elementary schools may be classified into 2 separate groups: the complete monograde schools on the one hand and all other schools on the other hand. The “all other schools” are precisely the multigrade schools and/or incomplete schools (MGIS). As a general rule, the MGIS are smaller and their school heads are only Teachers-in-charge.

79

multigrade and/or incomplete). Indeed more than half (52%) of TEEP schools are MGIS – compared to the national average of 42% and only 24% in non-poor Pampanga+.

Table ES-7: The Number And Percentage Of Multigrade And/Or Incomplete Schools (MGIS) In Each Group Of Provinces.

DIVISION COMPLETE

MONOGRADE SCHOOLS

MULTIGRADE AND/OR

INCOMPLETE SCHOOLS

TOTAL COMPLETE

MONOGRADE SCHOOLS

MULTIGRADE AND/OR

INCOMPLETE SCHOOLS

TOTAL

TEEP 3,954 4,241 8,195 48% 52% 100%

ARMM 693 1,266 1,959 35% 65% 100%

AKLAN+ 1,471 1,869 3,340 44% 56% 100%

CAGAYAN+ 4,901 3,828 8,729 56% 44% 100%

ILOILO+ 2,575 1,711 4,286 60% 40% 100%

PAMPANGA+ 7,558 2,448 10,006 76% 24% 100%

NCR 490 12 502 98% 2% 100%

GRAND TOTAL 21,642 15,375 37,017 58% 42% 100%Source: BEIS 2003-04

Figure ES-9: For Each Province Group, The No. Of Complete monograde Schools Versus The No. Of Multigrade And/Or Incomplete Schools23.

NO. OF COMPLETE MONOGRADE SCHOOLS VERSUS MGIS

3,954

1,471

4,901

2,575

7,558

490

1,2661,869 1,711

12

693

2,448

3,8284,241

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

TEEP ARMM AKLAN+ CAGAYAN+ ILOILO+ PAMPANGA+ NCR

Series1Series2

Source: BEIS++.

23 Among the province groups, TEEP has the largest number (4,241) of multigrade and/or incomplete schools. As a percentage of schools in the province group, however, ARMM (65% of its schools are MGIS) and Aklan+ (56% of its schools are MGIS) are in worse situations. The percentage of MGIS is an indicator of how “disadvantaged” a province group is.

80

Thirty five (35%) of TEEP municipalities are poor (i.e. 5th or 6th class) – compared to the national average of only 14%.

Table ES-8: By Province Group, Percentage Of Municipalities And Cities Which Are 5th And 6th Class.

MUNICIPALITY/ CITY CLASSIFICATIONS

PROVINCE GROUPS

1st and 2nd

CLASS

3rd and 4th

CLASS

5th and 6th

CLASS

NO CLASSIF Total

TEEP 10% 54% 35% 2% 100% ARMM 6% 28% 16% 50% 100% AKLAN+ 10% 49% 38% 3% 100% CAGAYAN+ 20% 47% 32% 1% 100% ILOILO+ 22% 61% 15% 1% 100% PAMPANGA+ 33% 46% 20% 1% 100% NCR 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% Total 11% 9% 14% 5% 100% Source: U.P. School Of Economics

In July 2001, two thousand principals were assembled in Manila to start training on an innovation called “principal-led construction”. It was an innovation never tried before. For many of these school heads it could have been their first visit to historic Manila Hotel. It would have been a memorable event for them to see and listen to then new President of the Philippines and new Secretary of Education. To the school heads, the “Third Elementary Education Project” must have seemed to be a mere slogan – and indeed it could have been the first time they ever heard of it. Yet in 2 weeks they completed their training and they returned to their schools with a virtual hope chest. Within 6 months, a thousand classrooms had risen in their school grounds and in 6 more months, a second thousand rose. Each classroom, whether brand-new or merely repaired, came with plumbing and electrical works, looked good as new and stood resplendent with a new coat of paint. Textbooks, school furniture, school kits, other materials also arrived. Teachers soon got called to training – and in time they were even allowed to organize training for themselves. Suddenly, for the pupils, school head, teachers, their parents and the local executives, TEEP was more than just a slogan. The secret of the TEEP story is a simple one. Its success has been anchored on faith in the capacity of the school head, the teachers and the community – with a bit of help from the division and central office -- to turn their situation around. The trust which TEEP gave to the people on the ground was easily earned. From a state of helplessness or apathy, TEEP moved 8,600 school heads, 54,000 teachers, about 1.7M pupils, about 3.0M parents and 700 LGU officials to a set of new realities. Even better, they awoke to a new set of possibilities.

81

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Specific Recommendations for the 23 Provinces As a project, TEEP ended on June 30 2006 but the 23 provinces should maintain their momentum and institutionalize the gains made under TEEP. Since DepED would most likely have to concentrate on the other poor provinces, notably ARMM, Aklan+ and Cagayan+, for the few years, the 23 provinces will have to do most of the work on their own. Without the usual support from a CPISU, the 23 will now have to build on the management processes, operations manuals, skills and confidence which TEEP has given them.

To sustain the gains under TEEP, the 23 provinces should continue to: 1. Focus support on multigrade and/or incomplete schools and IP-dominated schools to

spread the success of TEEP more evenly within the divisions. 2. Refine and continue the full implementation of SBM to all 8,600 schools. 3. Maintain/enhance school-community partnerships, involve the community more

without surrendering their academic integrity, and of course raise more resources. 4. Implement the Accreditation Program for Public Elementary Schools (APPES). 5. Increase their teaching pools (especially in MGIS schools) with volunteer teachers,

e.g. the Gurong Pahinungod of U.P., Jesuit Volunteers, Philippine Association of Volunteer Efforts, etc.

6. Institutionalize the “matrix organization” of the division office which served them well during the TEEP years. Each education supervisor will now have the usual subject area assignment but in addition would also deal with at least one other division concern such as training, advocacy, civil works, M & E, finance, etc. Each District Supervisor will have to fulfill his/her role as instructional leader.

7. Continue to innovate in classroom processes, e.g. eradicating illiteracy and innumeracy in the classroom, developing authentic assessment, experimenting with the medium of instruction in the early grades, honing the skills of students in science and math.

8. Train teachers on both content and pedagogy, ensure the application of INSET benefits into classroom teaching, and keep track of the volume and cost of training per teacher per subject so that the value of training in increasing school achievement levels can be measured statistically.

9. Localize teaching materials for the benefit especially of indigenous populations. 10. Maintain the network of the 23 divisions even after the end of TEEP. Although

each division may go on its own, there will be synergy in continuing the teamwork which the 23 divisions have built over the past 8.5 years.

To paraphrase Robert Frost, the 23 provinces have many more miles to go and promises to keep… For more detailed recommendations, please see Section 3 (“Next Steps”) of the main report.

6.2 Estimating the Cost of Follow-Up “TEEP-Type” Projects In Future

How much would follow-up TEEP-type project/s cost for the other poor provinces? Based on the implied TEEP project allocation of P 6,849 per pupil, the total cost per province group is shown below. (Spread over 8.5 years, this translates to about P 806 per

82

pupil per year). The estimated project allocation for ARMM is P 4.1B, for Aklan+ P5.5B – and for the much larger group Cagayan+ P16.8B.24.

Table ES-9: Estimated Cost Of Follow-Up Projects For Different Groups Of Provinces (In Million Pesos)

POVERTY GROUP TOTAL SCHOOLS

Total Teachers

ENROLMENT 2003-04

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

(M PESOS)

TEEP 8,195 54,449 1,679,661 2,531

ARMM 1,959 13,531 548,766 4,134

AKLAN+ 3,340 21,856 730,002 5,500

CAGAYAN+ 8,729 67,813 2,233,952 16,831

ILOILO+ 4,286 35,877 1,202,632 4,530

PAMPANGA+ 10,006 127,150 4,529,304

NCR 502 27,218 1,132,082

GRAND TOTAL 37,017 347,894 12,056,399 33,527 The estimates above are based on the following assumptions:

• The follow-up projects will apply only to the poor provinces. Because they are “non-poor” no estimates were made for Pampanga+ and NCR.

• To sustain the momentum of the original TEEP provinces, the Review Team recommends they still should be eligible in the follow-up project but to a lesser degree, e.g. 1/5 of the per-pupil share of ARMM, Aklan+ and Cagayan+. This translates to P 2.5B to sustain and build on the success of TEEP in the 23 provinces. Regular monitoring and evaluation should be institutionalized so there could be a “post-TEEP project review”, say in 2009-10, to see how the 23 provinces have fared three years after project closing.

• The provinces in Iloilo+, since they are deemed “less poor” than the others, may be considered eligible too but to a lesser degree, e.g. 1/2 of the per-pupil share of ARMM, Aklan+ and Cagayan+.

• A cost escalation factor of 10% between TEEP and the follow-up project.

These project/s need not be funded from just one source. Different sources (donors and/or lenders) could divide the groups above. Within the same geographical area, some inputs (e.g. civil works) could be phased ahead of other components. The implied investment of only P 806 per pupil per year seems very affordable but the success of TEEP is really due mostly to how the money was spent and how the project was implemented.

24 These were computed based on the implied P 6,849 TEEP disbursement per pupil after applying a 10% cost escalation factor. This of course assumes that the follow-up project/s would be as efficient was TEEP was.

83

To implement any follow-up project/s and obtain “TEEP-type” results, the following factors are necessary:

1. The firm leadership and commitment of a reform-minded Secretary of Education. 2. The full administrative support of a reform-minded Undersecretary. 3. Project leader/s chosen from organic personnel with proven track records in TEEP, e.g.

some high-performing superintendent/s. 4. A team of consultants with the correct mix of qualities and skills: vision for and

knowledge of basic education, leadership or ability to command authority, strategic thinking, communication skills, acumen for human relations, specialized technical expertise, professional integrity, and organizing skills for large scale mobilization.

5. A lead consultant with demonstrated competencies in implementing multi-component projects with the complexity, scale and scope of TEEP. Successful management experience is a must.

6. The pro-active involvement of donor/lender banks. For instance, regular “bank missions” (whether annual or semestral) provided project managers the opportunity to pause and reflect, to be more accountable.

7. The appointment of a “Council of Elders” consisting of eminent persons who can provide advice, direction and general strategies.

7.0 MAJOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPED

DepED should prioritize program support to the disadvantaged schools, i.e. multigrade and/or incomplete schools and those with substantial indigenous populations. Please see proposed framework at the end of this executive summary.

The department should reconceptualize multigrade teaching and recognize it as a

distinct, potentially effective and viable mode in and by itself. It is necessary to shift from a linear model of development that considers multigrade teaching as a mere

transition to monograde teaching to a model where the multigrade and monograde teaching are deemed as alternative

and parallel modes. With 42% of all schools in the country (52% in TEEP) being multigrade and/or incomplete, DepEd would have to acknowledge that multigrade teaching is here to stay for years or decades to come. It is not a temporary situation. DepED should institute a distinct career track and encourage the good teachers to stay in multigrade. Indeed, modern teaching methods are in effect variations of multigrade teaching. DepED should formally adopt school-based management via a DepED order.

Expand the implementation of SBM, initially by self-selection, among regions, divisions, and schools.

8.0 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEPED

Further details of the following recommendations and the lessons from TEEP which prompted them may be found in Sections 3-8 of the Integrated Report (a separate volume).

84

8.1 Adopt a National School Building Policy

DepEd will have to orchestrate and optimize the use of the pool of school building funds from all sources, public and private.

Figure ES-10: Chart Depicting All School Building Funds Going Into Public Elementary Schools.

The following are the features of the proposed National School Building Policy (NSBP). Based on lessons learned from TEEP, DepED should

• Estimate the total of funds from all sources which go into school building programs. Without trying to physically pool these funds, DepED should draw up a prioritized school-by-school list for repairs and new construction.

• Conduct a credible national school mapping exercise in partnership with professional architect and engineering societies and/or state universities and colleges. From this publish and disseminate in print a National School Mapping Databook to serve as the authoritative data source on schools both for needed repairs and new construction.

• Adopt a DepED Catalog of Standard Classroom Designs from which all builders, including donors, have to choose.

REVISED JUN 30 2006 TXR INTEGRATED PRESENTATION

GAA SBP( P 2.0 B per year)

PRIVATE SECTOR(e.g. FIL-CHI)

PROJECTS (e.g. TEEP P 7.1B)

The virtual “NATIONAL SCHOOL BUILDING FUND”

SEF/LGUsCLASSROOMS/

BUILDINGS

INT’L DONORS(e.g. JICA)

CONGRESS CDF

NOTE: DepED need not hold all SBP funds but must orchestrate their use.

85

• Regardless of the source of funds, public or private, all school building projects (including those administered by DPWH and LGUs) should involve the school head25 or a team led by the school head.

• Implement a prioritization scheme which is not based simply on pro-rata considerations. In particular, give higher priority to disadvantaged schools especially those in 5th and 6th class municipalities.

• Where LGU counterpart funding is required, implement a sliding scale as in:

Table ES-10: A Proposed Sliding Scale26 For LGU Counterpart Funding In SBP.

Municipality class

Propose equity or counterpart funding by

LGU (complete monograde schools)

Equity required for multigrade and/or incomplete schools

5th and 6th class 5% 2.5% 3rd and 4th class 10% 7.5%

2nd class 15% 12.5% 1st class 20% 15%

8.2 Improve the National Standardized Test Institutionalize a national assessment test, i.e. implement “a new and improved NAT” to

measure learning outcomes in the schools of the country.

8.3 Continue to Implement the APPES Continue the implementation of the Accreditation Program for Public Elementary Schools. The 23 provinces can lead in this activity.

8.4 Cultivate a Culture of Using Data and Information

• Adopt the policy of transparency through data and information sharing to promote goodwill, cooperation, rationality and resource generation:

• Within DepED (different levels in the DepED hierarchy, among the central offices)

• Between DepED and other agencies (e.g. Congress, DBM, LGUs, international/foreign donors, NGOs, etc.)

• Between a school and its community partners, i.e. the PTCA, the barangay, the LGU, major donors.

• Adopt a DepED Basic Education Data Element Manual to standardize terminology, definitions (consistent with EFA), classification, counting rules, formulas, and interpretations of both raw data and computed data.

• Adopt a standard DepEd School Planning Databook cum School Report Card suitable for a school or school cluster. (See cascade format below which is useful for tracing the progress of 3 cohorts of pupils in a school).

25 In recognition of the success of principal-led construction in TEEP, DepED issued Memo 252 on July 4, 2006 instructing its Physical Facilities and Schools Engineering Division (PFSED) to use the “Principal-led School Building Program”. 26 The percentages shown are mainly for illustration purposes only. The primary recommendation is to adopt a “sliding scale” based on school type and municipality class.

86

• Conduct advocacy and training among school heads to convince them that the school is the primary source but it is also the primary user of the data which it collects.

Table ES-11: Proposed “Cascade Format” For Use In Computing Some School Performance Indicators.

HEADCOUNTS 1998-

991999-

002000-

012001-

022002-

032003-

04 2004-

05 2005-

06GRADE 1 30 45 35 GRADE 2 20 34 29 GRADE 3 19 25 24 GRADE 4 17 20 21 GRADE 5 16 22 18 GRADE 6 15 16 13GRADUATES 14 11 12

• Adopt a standard DepEd Division Planning Databook suitable for a division office.

Include graphs and charts which are appropriate to division planning and operations For example, see figure below:

Figure ES-11: Proposed Table For Division Planning Databook Showing For Each Age Group, Enrolment In Public Schools, Private Schools And No. Of Out-Of-School Youth.

• Adopt a standard Division Education Development Plan (DEDP) template. • Upgrade the BEIS, its content and technological framework. • In recognition of Filipino culture and level of computer availability, DepED should

distribute data and information also in print, not just electronic form. • To improve credibility of all DepED data, display in time series format: to expose

gaps (missing or incomplete data) or possible errors (e.g. sudden dip or increase), to reveal general time trend (or absence of a trend), and to facilitate projections.

15,300

12,15910,057

8,8968,000 7,155 6,720

4,7405,700 5,650

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

AGE 6 AGE 7 AGE 8 AGE 9 AGE 10 AGE 11 AGE 12 AGE 13 AGE 14 AGE 15

BY AGE GROUP, ENROLMENT IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.AS OF AUG 31, 2005

Series3Series2Series1

87

• DepED/ NETRC should provide printouts of NAT results in the “Least Learned Skills” format to each school as shown below. This format has served TEEP very well.

Table ES-12: Table Showing Least Learned Skills In Each School.

COMPETENCY AREA: GRADE 4 READING COMPREHENSION

NAT 2002-03

JOSE

RIZ

AL

CE

S

STA

CR

UZ

ES)

PUL

AN

G B

AT

O C

ES

CH

ICO

ES

NO. OF EXAMINEES 82 11 50 20

READING COMPREHENSION: GRADE 4

13. Decodes meaning of unfamiliar words through context clues 38% 25% 18% 75%

14. Notes significant details that relate to the central theme 30% 13% 25% 25%

15. Gets the main idea that is explicit 25% 42% 25% 0%

16. Identifies the appropriate title for a selection 25% 6% 60% 25%

17. Sequences the major events in a selection 29% 13% 36% 67%

18. Identifies cause-effect relationship in a paragraph/passage 44% 25% 20% 13%

19. Identifies an appropriate ending to a given situation 41% 19% 39% 50%

20. Infers character trait 48% 17% 14% 11%

21. Draws conclusion based on information given 60% 38% 18% 50%

22. Distinguishes between facts and opinions 30% 19% 18% 25% Data source is the NETRC.

8.5 Procurement of Textbooks and Desks The success of TEEP schools in Math is most probably explained by the distribution of the BEE/Ateneo Math Lesson Guide series. TEEP printed the series out and gave a copy to each of its 54,000 teachers. That series, along with many other lessons from TEEP, have prompted the following recommendations: • Implement the “universal title policy”27 for textbooks. Each elementary school in

the Philippines should use the same set of textbooks and teacher guides.

27 DepED Memorandum No. 289 (July 7 2004) titled “Textbook Policy”.

88

• Procure a textbook series for each subject, not individual book titles. For instance, English 1,2,3,4,5,6 series.

• Unbundle the procurement process of textbook series into 3 phases: manuscript writing, printing and physical distribution. This will solve many problems with regard textbooks: poor quality of the writing, poor physical qualities of the resulting book, and problematic physical distribution to schools ( not district offices, not division offices).

• Institutionalize the procurement of school desks and furniture at the school level. The graph below shows that 31% of school furniture (mostly desks and chairs) in TEEP was purchased by schools.

Figure ES-12: The No. Of Pieces Of School Furniture Procured In TEEP, By Level – CPISU-Procured, DPISU-Procured And School-Purchased.

SCHOOL FURNITURE PURCHASED BY LEVEL

BY CPISU, 301,691 , 58%BY DPISU,

55,317 , 11%

BY SCHOOLS, 163,380, 31%

8.6 Recommendations on Finance

8.6.1 DepEd should adopt the policy of “responsibility, accountability, and transparency in fund generation and total fund management at all levels of the organization.” In short, each DepED school, division, regional office and the national office itself should account for all funds which go to the schools in their jurisdiction.

The department should account for all public and private funds, loans and grants, locally and internationally sourced funds. To facilitate aggregation and analysis, fund sources should be classified in a standard way as shown below. Expenditures from the SEF are separated from LGU non-SEF contributions to acknowledge the special generosity of some LGUs.

89

Table ES-13: Proposed Standard Classification Of DepEd Funding From All Sources.

FUNDING SOURCE PS MOOE CAPITAL OUTLAY UNCLASSIFIED TOTAL %

SHARE

GAA

DPWH-ADMINISTERED SBP

CONGRESSIONAL CDF

INTERNATIONAL GRANTS

LOAN-FUNDED PROJECTS

SEF

LGUs ( NON-SEF)

PTCAs

NGOs SCHOOL CANTEENS and FUND-RAISING

OTHER PRIVATE SOURCES

TOTAL

8.6.2 In the allocation of funds (whether public or private but especially public funds) DepEd should apply a dual equity-excellence principle: • Focus on equity, i.e. give priority to disadvantaged schools (multigrade

and/or incomplete schools, those with significant indigenous populations, those headed only by Teachers-in-Charge and those located in 5th and 6th class municipalities). Allocations to such schools cannot simply be in proportion to enrolment and/or teacher counts.

• Reward for school achievement based on targets and agreed performance indicators, e.g. accreditation level under the APPES, MPS in standard national tests, improvement in MPS between years, national rank in the NAT, improvement in NAT rank between years, zero non-readers and zero non-numerates, increase in participation rates, decrease in dropout rates, etc. The targets should be set jointly by the school and the division during the formulation of SIP/AIPs.

8.6.3 DepEd should conduct a study to determine the “normative cost per public

elementary pupil” and use this to obtain more realistic allocations from the GAA. The normative cost answers the question: how much ought the government allocate by way of PS, MOOE and CO for each elementary pupil each year?

8.6.4 DepED should adopt Work and Financial Planning plus mid-year financial reviews. This will allow DepED to see how division allocations and cash are being spent – or why they are not being spent.

90

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO MOOE FOR SCHOOLS:

8.6.5 In the light of the TEEP experience, DepED should drill down MOOE28 to elementary schools in full and in cash. It is not enough to drill down MOOE in kind. TEEP proved that school heads could be trusted to handle MOOE in cash, use this in support of the school’s Annual Implementation Plan and then go through the government liquidation process. This show of trust boosts their confidence and enhances their stature among the teachers and within the community.

8.6.6 To instill confidence between principals on the one hand and higher DepED officials on the other, the DepED central office and division offices must implement a transparency policy in MOOE allocations. The formulas, guidelines, the base data and the resulting allocations per school should be distributed in print for everybody to see.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOBILIZING RESOURCES BY SCHOOLS:

Figure ES-13 Diagram Showing Sources Of Funds Which Go Into A School.

GAA MOOE(via division)

PTCA

PROJECTS (e.g. TEEP, CFSS)THE VIRTUAL “TOTAL

SCHOOL FUND” (VTSF)SEF

MunicipalProvincial

In support ofSIP/AIP

INT’L DONORS

CANTEEN/ IGP

LGU

OTHERS

BARANGAY

NOTE: Principal does not hold all funds but must plan for all of them.

28 In July 2004, DepED issued a memo describing the process of allocating additional MOOE to each school. It was a pioneering step but it allowed allocations “in cash or in kind”. In TEEP, 6 out of the 23 divisions allocated their MOOE (both the additional and the regular GAA MOOE) to schools in cash. Most schools in TEEP received cash in the form of SBM school cash grants, not MOOE. It is not known how many of the non-TEEP divisions drilled down MOOE in cash to elementary schools. Resource persons have indicated that DepED will soon require drilling down MOOE to elementary schools in cash.

91

8.6.7 Each school should establish a school-community partnership and raise more resources on its own, e.g. from the SEF, income-generating projects and private donations.

8.6.8 In return, the school should be transparent with the community, giving

regular feedback to the PTCA, e.g. through the School Report Card (already developed under TEEP) and rendering a report on the Virtual Total School Fund (VTSF). See Figure E-8 and Table E-6.

Table ES-14: Table Showing The “Virtual Total School Fund” (Per Year)29 Of A Sample Of Schools In Antique During The TEEP Years (i.e 2000-01 To 2004-05).

AVERAGE PER YEAR DURING 2000-2001 to 2004-2005

LGU District/School

SEF SBP

Equity Barangay PTCA Others

(Private) TOTAL

Casay ES

500 -

3,000 107,360

48,000

158,860

Iba ES - - 400 14,427

420

15,247

Tagaytay PS - - - 4,000 -

4,000

Magtulis ES -

26,537 - 1,000 -

27,537

Mayos ES - -

1,000 184 -

1,184

Jinalinan-Paliwan ES -

25,000 300 1,000

400

26,700

Yapu ES

3,000 - 200 300

200

3,700

Harigue ES - - - - - -

Hininga-an ES - - - - - -

Camancijan ES

34,800

12,000 400 6,400 -

53,600

Carit-an ES - - - 376 -

376

Culasi CS

19,552 - - - -

19,552

Naba PS - -

1,000 1,452

3,810

6,262

SUBTOTAL

57,852

63,537

6,300 136,499

52,830

317,019 Source: Excerpts from Antique Project Completion Report (July 2006).

29 This table shows actual data reported by a small sample of schools in Antique. This can be used to compare how much each school was able to raise before TEEP as opposed to what it raised during TEEP. Indeed, it should be used to construct a time series and see how much is raised from each source after TEEP. This is an example of a table which schools can or should share with their stakeholders, partly to account for funds already received -- and partly to induce them to contribute even more. Note that some schools have not reported amounts raised.

92

SEF: POTENTIAL, COLLECTED AND DISBURSED

14.4

9.07.8

-

2.04.0

6.0

8.0

10.012.0

14.0

16.0

SEF POTENTIAL SEF COLLECTED SEF DISBURSED

SEF POTENTIALSEF COLLECTEDSEF DISBURSED

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (SEF).

8.6.9 Update the Memorandum of Understanding among COA-DepEd-DILG -- and this time include the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) -- to prioritize the use of SEF funds for basic education (as opposed to sports and culture) and to schools ( as opposed to administrative offices) and to implement a systematic annual reporting scheme.

8.6.10 DepED, DBM and DILG should jointly commission a study on the potential capacity of the SEF, the actual collections and disbursements. The national potential of the SEF is estimated to be P 14.4B30, assuming 100% collection of real estate taxes. The amount collected is estimated at P9.0B per year and total amount disbursed is estimated at P 7.8B ( or only 54% of P 14.4B). Compared to the DepED budget of about P110B in the GAA, the disbursed SEF represents a 7.0% supplement.

Figure ES-14: Special Education Fund: Potential, Actual Collections, And Amounts Disbursed (Billion Pesos Per Year).

Source: Bureau of Local Government Finance (2003).

8.6.11 Acknowledge the special generosity of LGUs which donate to basic education from their own municipal or provincial funds, not the SEF. That is, disbursements from “SEF” and “LGU (non-SEF)” should be tabulated separately.

8.6.12 Build an “analyzable” database on the SEF. To begin, annual expenditures from the SEF should be classified according to some standard classification as proposed below.

30 Bureau of Local Government Finance (2003), as cited by fomer Usec M Luz at the Philippine Association Of School Superintendents assembly in November 2004.

93

Table ES-15: Proposed Standard Classification Of Disbursements Against The Special Education Fund.

SEF EXPENSES FOR 1 YEAR PS MOOE CAPITAL

OUTLAY NOT

CLASSIFIED TOTAL % SHARE

SPORTS

CULTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REGIONAL, DIVISION OR DISTRICT OFFICES

OTHERS

TOTAL

RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECT FINANCE

8.6.13 In future projects, the project finance staff should be attached to the regular DepED finance office under the direct supervision of the DepEd regular finance officer and not as a separate project finance unit.

8.6.14 In future projects, the lead Finance Consultant should be experienced in regular

government bureaucracy financial rules, more liberal government “fiscal autonomy” financial rules such as those enjoyed by government corporations and the U.P. System, and in foreign-assisted or loan-funded projects. The consultant should be “creative within the rules”, have good relations with the regular DepED finance officer, DBM, COA and the banks.

8.6.15 Future projects should design and use management reports specifically intended

for project managers such as superintendents, bureau directors, and high officials. Example: TEEP COLSAC report (Cumulative Obligations and Statement of Expenditures Applied for and Cash received). The usual financial compliance reports required by DBM and COA are too technical and are not really suited for education managers.

94

Figure ES-15: COLSAC31 (Cumulative Obligations, Liquidations, SOE Applied For And Cash Received). Note: data shown below for illustration purposes only.

134.6130.0 127.5

90.3 87.5

111.4

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

OBLIGATIO

NS

LIQUID

ABLE O

BLIG

LIQUID

ATIONS

LOAN LI

QUIDATIO

NSSOE

CASH

FUND TYPE

DIVISION COLSAC ( IN MILLION PESOS)

The fuller treatment of lessons under specific themes and details of the recommendations may be found in the main report, a separate volume. 9.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Team advocates collective reflection on TEEP and future reform in light of: • mining a complex project like TEEP for insights into factors that could facilitate or

constrain a speedier education reform process; • thinking more systematically about how gains from such projects can be sustained and

built upon to prevent the dissipation of the momentum of change; and • situating TEEP and other projects in a bigger map of reform measures, policies, projects

and programs that ought to constitute an integral whole—DepEd’s master plan for Philippine basic

31 This chart is derived from the “COLSAC” form designed by TEEP. It enables project managers (who usually are not finance experts), e.g. the Deputy Project Manager, CPISU component heads and superintendents, to visualize the various stages through which project funds go through from obligations all the way to “loan drawdowns” in the case of loan-funded components. The chart also shows cash received in relation to obligations and liquidations.

95

Figure ES-16: Proposed Program Support Framework For DepEd

Central/Regional

Field support systems • DEDP (Planning) • organized support for SBM • training of schoolheads • division/district wide technical

assistance for SBP/SBM/procurement, fund management, etc.)

• M & E • school or cluster-based INSET

support/training designs • support for innovations (e.g.

SIIF-DSF, ACTF) • Support for school-based

health and nutrition programs • Information, Education,

Communication, Advocacy (social mobilization)

• Networking with LGU provincial and Municipal Local School Boards

Priority 1: Type C schools (Incomplete Schools)

SBM

Priority 2: Type B schools (Complete MG/Combination)

Priority 3: Type A1 schools (small monograde)

Priority 4: Type A2 schools (medium monograde)

Priority 5: Type A3 schools (large monograde)

Secondary LevelAlternative Learning Systems

ECE

SBM

Mile

ston

es

Inte

grat

ed M

onito

ring

and

Eva

luat

ion

Syst

em

Syst

ems/

Proc

edur

es/P

roce

sses

Division/ District

Private Sector • Corporate • NGOs • Civic

groups • Local orgs

• resource support programs (e.g. Adopt-a-child)

• volunteer programs

PTCA (local, federated)

• school-PTCA partnership • resource support • parent brigades • joint school-PTCA committees

• resource support SEF/IRA/equity generation

• school-LGU partnership

(e.g. health and nutrition, education-related resolutions/ordinances)

• National education philosophy, mission, goals • National/regional education plan • National core curriculum • Standards/national assessment/national quality assurance systems

(e.g. NETRC, APPES) • National/regional professional staff development programs (e.g.

NEAP) • National Education Programs (e.g. Every Child a Reader Program or

ECARP, Child-Friendly School System or CFSS • National/regional budgetary allocations for classrooms, TXB, furniture,

etc. • National/regional BEIS/ education research LGU

• Province • Municipality • Barangay • Sangguniang

Kabataaan

96

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Aide Memoires, Back-to-Office Reports, Project Status Reports and Implementation Status Reports 1996-2006. Staff Appraisal Report 15888-PH (1996). Project Operations Manuals and Monitoring Reports. Mid-Term Review Report of the TEEP, December, 2000. TEEP Project Completion Reports by Division, 2006. Philippines: Building a Case for School-Based Management. World Bank Education Policy Notes, 2004. Philippines: Improving the Quality of Basic Education. World Bank Education Policy Notes, 2004. Philippines: Teachers Development, Recruitment, and Performance. World Bank Education Policy Notes, 2004. Philippines: Raising Educational Outcomes among Poor and Disadvantaged Youths. World Bank Education Policy Notes, 2004. Integrative Report on the Studies on Priority Issues in Basic Education: The Education Policy Research Process, Priority Policy Issues, Research Findings, and Recommendations. UP Econ Foundation, Inc. and DepED CPISU, June 2003. Beginnings: Documentation of Good Practices in TEEP Provinces, 8 SIIF Projects, Vol. II. DepED, 2004. Philippines: Education Policy Reform in Action - A Review of Progress since PESS and PCER. Joint WB, ADB Study, May 2004. Philippine Education for the 21st Century. The 1998 Philippines Education Sector Study, ADB, 1999. JBIC Review of TEEP. Final Report. Aug. 2006. Project Completion Report. Third Elementary Education Project. Department of Education, August 2006. De Jesus E. "A Roadmap for Education". DepED. February 2004. Republic of the Philippines. Educated Filipinos, An Educated Nation: National Action Plan to Achieve Education for All by the Year 2015 (EFA 2015), June 2005. A Multi-Year Spending Plan for Philippine Education: Enrolment Projections and Cost Simulations under Alternative Growth and Reform Scenarios (Final Draft), August 2005. Department of Education. "Schools First Initiative Strategy Document", April 2005. Country Assistance Strategy for the Philippines, 2006-2008, The World Bank Group in the Philippines, 2005. Country Strategy for the Philippines, 1996. The World Bank Group in the Philippines, 1995. National Program Support for Basic Education. Project Appraisal Document. World Bank, 2006.Technical Report. NSBA 2005. Third Elementary Education Project, September 2006.

97

Annex 10. Additional Annex

10.1 Project Outcomes Indicators, by Division (Baseline to 2005)

Project Outcomes Indicators, by Division (Baseline to 2005)

Province Completion Rate Change in Completion Rate

Change in Rank on NAT Achievement

1994-95 (Public)

2002-03 2004-05 1995-2005 2003-2005

Abra 68 69 78 +10 Neg.

Agusan del Sur 62 47 50 -12 Pos.

Antigue 62 64 59 -3 Pos.

Aurora 61 78 76 +15 Neg.

Basilan 35

Batanes 86 94 89 +3 Neg.

Bengeut 74 68 70 -4 Pos.

Biliran 61 67 73 +12 Pos.

Capiz 61 71 56 -5 Neg.

Eastern Samar 62 53 91 +29 Pos.

Guimaras 61 74 75 +14 Pos.

Ifugao 44 61 51 +7 Neg.

Kalinga-Apayao 48 73 49 +1 Kalinga – Pos.

Leyte 59 66 63 +4 Pos.

Maguindanao 33

Masbate 50 51 54 +4 Neg.

Mt. Province 59 69 68 +9 Pos.

Negros Oriental 42 54 57 +15 Neg.

North Cotabato 60 52 57 -3 Pos.

Romblon 68 70 59 -9 Pos.

Southern Leyte 71 90 81 +10 Pos.

Sulu 33

Surigao del Sur 57 66 60 +3 Pos.

Tawi Tawi 33

Zamboanga del Sur 48 61 54 +6 Neg.

Source: 1994-1995 completion data are from SAR (RN 15888-PH); and 2002-03 and 2004-05 data from the GoP PCR. Achievement change-in-rank data are from the JBIC report; the precise numbers are not available, as the information is extracted from a graph (Figure 2-8, pg.2-11). The italicizied names reflect the divisions that were dropped from the project in 1999.

98

10.2 Endnotes

Endnotes

[1] Summarized from SAR Annexes 2, 4, and 5.

[2] The final expenditure reported in the GoP PCR is PhP11,616M. An exchange rate of PhP52.56 to $1 is used to calculate the expenditure in USD.

[3] ARMM is a group of provinces including Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi Tawi.

[4] Excluding ARMM from the figure in NPSBE should show an even higher NER.

[5] The NSBA was conducted in 2000-2001 as well, but the sample did not overlap with the latter administrations.

[6] A multi-year spending plan for Philippine education: enrolment projects and cost simulations under alternative growth and reform scenarios (2005). Study conducted by a joint study team of the Department of Education, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies and the World Bank.

[7] ICR team's calculations, based on the mean and standard deviations provided in the NSBA 2005 technical report.

[8] Excluding ARMM

[9] If the estimates are accurate, the data would imply that large divisions were excluded from the Project, averaging 6-11 age group cohorts of 127,526 each.

[10] Excluding ARMM.

[11] JBIC evaluation of TEEP (draft report as of this writing). Rank-based analysis was conducted, rather than analysis using raw scores, as the test was administered in successive grades each year and, therefore, the data were not directly comparable on a longitudinal basis.

[12] The JBIC report provides detailed analysis.

[13] The ICR team estimated this number based on the total cost and enrollment data provided in the GoP PCR. The enrolment data are estimated for the 8.5 years of project duration, based on the average of the enrolment numbers between 2003 and 2005.

[14] These are rough estimates based on the statistics reported in the GoP's PCR and the JBIC report. The raw data were not available to the ICR team at the time of this writing.

[15] Reported by project management unit, based on information from DepEd's budget division.

[16] Summarized from SAR Annexes 2, 4, and 5.

[17] JBIC report. Survey response rate was 81 percent in Abra and 66 percent in Leyte.

99

MAP IBRD27835R